I recently started work with the Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative, and found this paper very useful. Thank you.
On Tuesday, 8 August 2017 10:51:14 UTC+1, Jesse Reynolds wrote: > > Andrew, Doug, and fellow geo-ers, > > > > There is indeed much BS (for lack of a more graceful term) in the climate > engineering discourse, especially on the SRM side. The precise nature of > the items of BS vary substantially from being demonstrably false to lacking > appropriate qualifiers. The general causes of such a large quantity of BS > are that (1) much of empirical data underlying is noisy, and one can > (consciously or unconsciously) select data points in order to draw > conclusions that differ significantly from the average yet are still > supported by empirical evidence; and (2) many of the issues are inherently > speculative, yet those who make claims too often fail both to make their > underlying assumptions explicit and to examine the likelihood of these > assumptions. > > > > Andy Parker, Pete Irvine, and I critiqued five common claims in the SRM > discourse “that are unsupported by existing evidence, unlikely to occur, or > greatly exaggerated.” This was published in the special issue of Earth’s > Future last fall, and is attached here for your convenience. There are > indeed other items of BS that warrant a critique, but these could not be > addressed in our brief paper, usually because substantially nuance would be > needed in a critique. > > > > Cheers > > Jesse > > *Dr. Jesse Reynolds* | Postdoctoral Researcher and Research Funding > Coordinator | Institute for Jurisprudence, Constitutional and > Administrative Law | Utrecht Centre for Water, Oceans and Sustainability > Law | Faculty of Law, Economics and Governance | Utrecht University | > Achter Sint Pieter 200 | 3512 HT Utrecht | The Netherlands | +31 (0) 30 > 253 7086 | j.l.reyno...@uu.nl <javascript:> | www.uu.nl/staff/JLReynolds/ > | jessereynolds.org | Available on Mon., Tues., Thurs., Fri. > > My latest publication: “Climate Engineering, Law, and Regulation > <http://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199680832.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199680832-e-71>” > > in *The Oxford Handbook on the Law and Regulation of Technology* > > > > *From:* geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> [mailto: > geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>] *On Behalf Of *Douglas > MacMartin > *Sent:* Sunday, August 6, 2017 14:38 > *To:* peter.ei...@gmail.com <javascript:>; 'Andrew Lockley' < > andrew....@gmail.com <javascript:>> > *Cc:* 'geoengineering' <geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>> > *Subject:* RE: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse > > > > I think it would be more accurate to say that, based on what we know > today, we don’t know what the costs of DAC would be if deployed at scale. > I understand that people have made estimates, but it is very hard to > reliably forecast costs from things done at 3 or more (?) orders of > magnitude smaller scale than would be necessary (it would not be hard to > find historical examples of wildly inaccurate cost estimates of either sign > of error, indeed I suspect it would be hard to find any comparable examples > where cost estimates turned out to have been pretty good). > > > > In that respect I think you’re both wrong (and, no offense, but committing > a similar fallacy of over-confidence in extrapolation), and I think it is > premature, for example, to base current mitigation decisions on the > assumption that DAC will turn out to be cheap. I think “we” ought to > invest vastly more $$ in learning how to scale up technology. > > > > Note Jesse, Andy and Pete’s tropes paper too: > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000416/full > > > > doug > > > > *From:* geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> [ > mailto:geo...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>] *On Behalf Of *Peter > Eisenberger > *Sent:* Sunday, August 06, 2017 6:04 AM > *To:* Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com <javascript:>> > *Cc:* geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>> > *Subject:* Re: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse > > > > I am not sure if this approach does not risk making the same mistake that > critics of geopengineering do in using real examples of absurd arguments > and then generalize > > to discredit others that are not worthy. I agree with some of your list > but I personally know that it cam easily be proven scientiifically that DAC > can be deployed at the scale needed > > to achieve the objectives of CDR and do so withiout any unintended risks > that plaqued attempts like SRM. In fact DAC made it to your list because of > the same type of n on scietific attacks that currrently plaque approaches > like SRM. Non scientific statements like DAC will be too costy and moral > hazard arguments have been used to create accepted myths about DAC to the > extent it mde it on to your list(with equivocation) . > > > > I have made the point before that scientific community supporting the > risk of climate change started the non scientific approach in response to > attacks by climate deniers by over stating what models could predict. > > Because the climate system is a complex system by definition the > "butterfly" risk exists. The risk that our rapid rate of Co2 change will > initiate a mode that will cause great destruction definitely exists but it > is essentially scientifically impossible to predict because from the > currrent state a large number of future paths exist which cannot at this > time distinquish between and state with any meanigful accuracy whci state > will actually emerge . This is just basic physics . So I claim > scientifcally it is our ignorance of what risk we are actually taking by > changing the CO2 concentration that is scientifically sound . The claims > that the modelling community can make assessments of the future state with > scientically meaningful accuracy that reduces the existing risk of our lack > of knowledge of the future is not scientifically sound. From many > discussions i have had many agree with this but will not speak for fear of > giving comfort to climate deniers. In turn of course I know seveal first > class physicists that are offended by the climate predicitions made for the > reason I stated and thus the non defensible predictions. This is partly > responsible for creating the more scientific minded deniers. I employ > everyone to refrain from exaggerated and non scientifically defensible > statements. If science loses its objectivity we are truly in trouble. > > > > I am a strong supporter of research on SRM and other geoengineering > approaches though I am skeptical that one will ever be able to remove the > risks their deployment might create for reasons related to the above > arguments. In fact I woulld like to be proven incorrect since if it were > the case it would mean we understand things much better than we do now and > that would be great.My reaction to the above is that it is easier for us to > design the future than predict it. By this I mean we can develop > capabilities like DAC and CDR and renewable energy and possible even SRM > so we can actually damp out any mode that threatens to grow and cause > great destruction. That such an adaptive system is easier create than to > be able to predict the future with any meaningful accuracy. Having said > that I want to be clear I also think modelling is valuable for it will help > us identify early signs of modes that if allowed to grow could destabilize > our climate. They can be used to create a so called planning horizon in > which time we can be confident how the system will evolve. > > > > I hope we can all come together and instead of arguing with each other > have a scientificaly sound debate where we all seek the best knowledge we > can achieve independent of what that turns out to be. That is what science > is about and we should all commit to doing it. > > > > On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com > <javascript:>> wrote: > > I've been taking this MOOC in bullshit, from the University of Washington > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2OtU5vlR0k > > > > Simply put, bullshit is variously defined as (paraphrased) > > - Arguing persuasively, with total ignorance of (or indifference to) > factual accuracy > > - Deliberately misleading (mis)use of facts and data > > > > I'm planning a paper on "Bullshit in geoengineering discourse". > > > > I've identified the following common examples of bullshit, common in our > field. I'd like to open up the discussion to the list, to provide more > examples, and any favorite examples of the below (or new) bullshit > arguments. I've listed advocates of the arguments, where these are > top-of-mind > > - Geoengineering allows continued emissions (BAU) - Freakonomics > > - Scientists working on CE are offering it as an alternative to mitigation > > - Terrestrial BECCS can be deployed at scale - Paris > > - Termination shock is a likely socio-technical risk from SRM > > - DAC is a viable strategy at for at-scale CDR (controversial?) > > - SRM will cause monsoon failure > > - SRM will be deployed at a scale leading to widespread drying > > - Geoengineering could cause a snowball earth (snowpiercer) > > - Moral hazard exists in the form conventionally described > > - Greenfinger scenarios are likely (controversial?) > > - CDR can be used late-century, as an alternative to near-term mitigation > (Paris) > > > > > > Thoughts are welcome > > > > A > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to geoeng...@googlegroups.com > <javascript:>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > > > > -- > > CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain > confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the > intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the > non-disclosure agreement between the parties. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to geoeng...@googlegroups.com > <javascript:>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to geoeng...@googlegroups.com > <javascript:>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
