Re: [geo] Re: Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists? Popular Mechanics
Should we end fish farming? - Original Message - From: David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2012 3:43:13 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists? Popular Mechanics Can We Stop Modern-Day Yellow Journalism? Media coverage such as yours distorted what went on until a casual observer wouldn't have a clue as to what the facts are. Is that your job? Do you lie awake at night worried that you will fail the next day in your effort to distort and confuse? I sent that and some other thoughts to the editor of Popular Mechanics, publisher of the Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists article. Yellow journalism describes what journalism in New York degenerated into as a result of the circulation war Hearst and Pulitzer controlled newspapers conducted in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Editors would sensationalize or make up events to fit story ideas they thought would sell more papers. Wikipedia has a Yellow Journalism entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism A short article is here. http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/spring04/vance/yellowjournalism.html Most media coverage of the ocean fertilization experiment the Haida recently conducted off the coast of British Columbia, by reporting it in terms that appear to have nothing to do with the facts of the event and with sensationalized details, brought the topic of yellow journalism to mind. Take this Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists article. The Haida say that whatever happened it was their experiment which they paid for and controlled. The Haida believe that the reason they caught a record number of fish recently is because iron rich dust from a volcanic eruption fertilized the ocean where the fish they are interested in grow up. As far as they know, that volcano isn't going to erupt again any time soon. But they have boats, and they can buy fertilizer. So they took 120 tonnes of fertilizer out onto the high seas and dumped it where they think the fish live. If they succeed in increasing their fish catch as a result, they hope to repeat the event. The Haida say it was their idea to approach Russ George, not the other way around. They see selling carbon credits as supplementary funding which, if it can be shown that fish stocks can be increased in this way, could help them do it more often. Popular Mechanics author Kathryn Doyle tells us what happened was rogue science on the high seas, as Russ George... launched his latest in a long line of big, controversial ideas, where 200,000 pounds of iron sulphate was supposed to spur a huge plankton bloom which was supposedly intended to have a planetary effect. Russ George's unilateral geoengineering has outraged scientists. I'll leave aside the obvious question: why didn't Kathryn report the amount of material in picograms? There is no mad scientist involved in unilateral geoengineering. There is a group of Natives who consulted Russ George as they attempt to test an idea they have to increase their fish catch. Kathryn's article, in comparison to many articles about this event, discusses geoengineering in ways that seem appropriate. But this is later on, after the wild headline and the distortions of the first three paragraphs. Why ignore what happened and write it up this way? On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:53:30 AM UTC-8, andrewjlockley wrote: http://www.popularmechanics.com/_mobile/science/environment/geoengineering/can-we-stop-modern-day-mad-scientists-14793219?src=rss Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists? An American businessman made waves last month when, without asking permission, he dumped a bunch of iron sulfate into the Pacific Ocean to launch a carbon-sequestering geoengineering experiment. With these sorts of Earth-hacking ideas being floated, what's to stop a man with the means from doing it himself? BY KATHRYN DOYLE NASAIt's hard to stop a bad idea with enough money behind it—even rogue science on the high seas. Russ George, a wealthy American businessman with a history of big, controversial ideas, launched his latest one this October: dumping 200,000 pounds of iron sulfate into the North Pacific. His aim was to spur a huge plankton bloom, which would absorb carbon dioxide in photosynthesis and then sink to the ocean floor. George was attempting to engage in ocean fertilization, the idea that seeding the sea in this way creates those organic blooms that sequester carbon when they sink. Plenty of scientists have bandied about the idea of ocean fertilization—it's one of the most common proposals for geoengineering, or engineering the earth to protect civilization from climate change. But George didn't write a scientific paper about the implications of fertilizing the Pacific Ocean with iron. He just went out and did it, with the backing of the Haida Salmon
[geo] Re: Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists? Popular Mechanics
Can We Stop Modern-Day Yellow Journalism? Media coverage such as yours distorted what went on until a casual observer wouldn't have a clue as to what the facts are. Is that your job? Do you lie awake at night worried that you will fail the next day in your effort to distort and confuse? I sent that and some other thoughts to the editor of Popular Mechanics, publisher of the Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists article. Yellow journalism describes what journalism in New York degenerated into as a result of the circulation war Hearst and Pulitzer controlled newspapers conducted in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Editors would sensationalize or make up events to fit story ideas they thought would sell more papers. Wikipedia has a Yellow Journalism entry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism A short article is here. http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/spring04/vance/yellowjournalism.html Most media coverage of the ocean fertilization experiment the Haida recently conducted off the coast of British Columbia, by reporting it in terms that appear to have nothing to do with the facts of the event and with sensationalized details, brought the topic of yellow journalism to mind. Take this Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists article. The Haida say that whatever happened it was their experiment which they paid for and controlled. The Haida believe that the reason they caught a record number of fish recently is because iron rich dust from a volcanic eruption fertilized the ocean where the fish they are interested in grow up. As far as they know, that volcano isn't going to erupt again any time soon. But they have boats, and they can buy fertilizer. So they took 120 tonnes of fertilizer out onto the high seas and dumped it where they think the fish live. If they succeed in increasing their fish catch as a result, they hope to repeat the event. The Haida say it was their idea to approach Russ George, not the other way around. They see selling carbon credits as supplementary funding which, if it can be shown that fish stocks can be increased in this way, could help them do it more often. Popular Mechanics author Kathryn Doyle tells us what happened was rogue science on the high seas, as Russ George... launched his latest in a long line of big, controversial ideas, where 200,000 pounds of iron sulphate was supposed to spur a huge plankton bloom which was supposedly intended to have a planetary effect. Russ George's unilateral geoengineering has outraged scientists. I'll leave aside the obvious question: why didn't Kathryn report the amount of material in picograms? There is no mad scientist involved in unilateral geoengineering. There is a group of Natives who consulted Russ George as they attempt to test an idea they have to increase their fish catch. Kathryn's article, in comparison to many articles about this event, discusses geoengineering in ways that seem appropriate. But this is later on, after the wild headline and the distortions of the first three paragraphs. Why ignore what happened and write it up this way? On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:53:30 AM UTC-8, andrewjlockley wrote: http://www.popularmechanics.com/_mobile/science/environment/geoengineering/can-we-stop-modern-day-mad-scientists-14793219?src=rss Can We Stop Modern-Day Mad Scientists? An American businessman made waves last month when, without asking permission, he dumped a bunch of iron sulfate into the Pacific Ocean to launch a carbon-sequestering geoengineering experiment. With these sorts of Earth-hacking ideas being floated, what's to stop a man with the means from doing it himself? BY KATHRYN DOYLE NASAIt's hard to stop a bad idea with enough money behind it—even rogue science on the high seas. Russ George, a wealthy American businessman with a history of big, controversial ideas, launched his latest one this October: dumping 200,000 pounds of iron sulfate into the North Pacific. His aim was to spur a huge plankton bloom, which would absorb carbon dioxide in photosynthesis and then sink to the ocean floor. George was attempting to engage in ocean fertilization, the idea that seeding the sea in this way creates those organic blooms that sequester carbon when they sink. Plenty of scientists have bandied about the idea of ocean fertilization—it's one of the most common proposals for geoengineering, or engineering the earth to protect civilization from climate change. But George didn't write a scientific paper about the implications of fertilizing the Pacific Ocean with iron. He just went out and did it, with the backing of the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation, a First Nations group in Canada that was hoping an improvement in the ocean would also improve the salmon numbers they depend on. This wasn't George's first attempt at unilateral geoengineering. But his solo action has outraged scientists,
