I've been a member of this list for a number of years. For the most
part, I just "lurk", learning from the many well-informed and thoughtful
list members. Very occasionally, when something related to my areas of
expertise (psychology and community conservation) comes up, I make a
small contribution. As Mary reports, I am almost always ignored.
I don't like to see anyone excluded from the list because they don't
agree with the mainstream view. It seems to me that our understanding
can only be enriched by a diversity of views.
I seldom feel the need to criticize the author of a message. When
something is not of interest to me or does not seem credible, I simply
hit "delete", an action that only takes a fraction of a second.
John
On Wed, 2012-08-15 at 09:52 -0700, Mary Woodbury wrote:
> With all due respect, I am a newer member and made an introductory
> email a few months ago, which went into the nether. I would think that
> to encourage people to contribute, we must be made to feel welcome in
> the very least.
>
> I am not sure what the prerequisites are for contributing to
> discussion, either. I have felt in recent emails that being a member
> from the beginning and/or being a researcher, scientist, peer-reviewed
> publisher gains one's credibility, which is fair, but of course not
> always possible. But I would also hope that others with educated
> perspectives or questions are equally grounded as far as a platform on
> which to contribute to these discussions. By platform, I do not mean
> pedestal. I would think that the health and integrity of any such list
> lies in accepting a variety of backgrounds and recognizing new
> members.
>
> For what it's worth, I also believe that geo-engineering is a very
> risky venture, but may have merit in very localized areas. However, I
> still think the main problem is, as Kevin has pointed out, that we
> must find a solution not adhering to bandaid fixes that ignore the
> original problem of why we are seeing anthropogenic climate event (not
> Kevin's words). Especially when geo-engineering may make matters
> worse. If there is to be geo-engineering discussion here, at least
> tell us how it will be done and why it will be safe and not further
> harmful.
>
> Respectfully,
> Mary
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2012 at 3:30 AM, George Marshall
> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Dear list members,
>
>
>
> I share Alastair’s concerns about the way this list is being
> used.
>
>
>
> I do not agree with AMEG on geoengineering and, whilst this is
> a legitimate debate, I do not want this list to be dominated
> by any single view.
>
>
>
> What is more of a problem is when people use a shared list for
> carrying out lengthy interpersonal discussions and debate. It
> is disrespectful to the group. The number of active
> contributors to this list has shrunk considerably which is a
> sign of ill health.
>
>
>
> I entirely endorse Alastair’s request that AMEG constructs it
> own list for its issues and invites people to join. As someone
> who has managed many lists around specific subjects over the
> years (and as one of the first participants in Crisis Forum) i
> would never think of using a shared general list in this way.
>
>
>
> This is potentially a very useful list but always tried to
> respect its limitations. I have used it to post items and
> announcement of interest to members and, on occasion, to
> contribute to a debate (as I am doing now). As soon as the
> debate becomes small and interpersonal I have taken it off
> line and written directly to people. I suggest that other
> participants do likewise.
>
>
>
> George
>
>
>
>
>
> George Marshall,
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> Director of Projects,
>
> Climate Outreach Information Network
>
> Rhwydwaith Allgymorth a Gwybodaeth am yr Hinsawdd
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Alastair
> McIntosh
> Sent: 14 August 2012 22:05
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Greenland
>
>
>
>
> Dear Forum members and AMEG
>
>
>
> There are a number of us who are long term users of this forum
> who share the concerns that Kevin has spoken. We might have
> worded them differently, but sometimes these things only get
> said when the dam bursts.
>
>
>
> In the past year I have been involved in two major
> disagreements with AMEG , both around the scientific basis of
> its claims and the way in which its members persistently use
> this list as if other users are the subject of a lobbying
> campaign. I know that I am by no means alone amongst list
> users in feeling that the appearance of the AMEG lobby,
> especially in the past year, has lowered the scientific
> utility of the list, introducing what has been, with some
> contributors, a persistent undergraduate level of debate on a
> list that had previously been of professional value as a
> sounding board to many of us – and not just on climate
> change, but on other global crisis issues as well.
>
>
>
> Personally, I have considered leaving the list, but had
> decided to wait until after the Crisis Forum conference in
> London in November in order, first, to have the opportunity of
> meeting and discussing with some of the AMEG lobby face to
> face. However, Kevin’s email and the reactions it has evoked
> makes this discussion a timely one to advance now.
>
>
>
> I speak both as an ordinary member of this list and as a
> scholar who, in 2009, was invited by the moderators to feature
> on their “Who are we?” page. I have since, twice I think,
> written to the moderators about AMEG’s use of the list.
> However, the moderators responded that they are all are too
> busy to do a lot of moderating, and in any case, were uneasy
> about intervening. I completely understand that position. At
> the same time, I think that AMEG members should know that
> there are at least several of us long term professional users
> of the list who resent the lowering of the standard of debate
> that AMEG has introduced (though not all the time). Kevin has
> laid out his concerns on this front. For my laying out of
> concerns – for my challenges on the scientific validity of
> some of the claims being made to push geoengineering – look
> back through the archive.
>
>
>
> In my time on this list I have several times received emails
> from users who say that they are onlookers, because they are
> aware that they lack the background to contribute but value
> learning from the debates. I have huge respect for that,
> because scholarship is not an egalitarian process. It is an
> open process in that it welcomes people to take the steps to
> become authorities, but one does not become an authority by
> assertion, and in the scholarly world that means achieving
> publications, and those, through credible publishing outlets
> that have a reputation worth not losing.
>
>
>
> During my most recent disagreement with AMEG I did an
> experiment. I entered into Google Scholar the names of a
> number of the key contributors to this list alongside the
> keyword “climate”. For several of us, several prominent
> publications came up on the first page. In the case of Kevin
> Coleman, there’s a whole screed of them assuming it is the
> same man). Good. That is what I would expect of a useful list
> discussing a scientific/social scientific topic.
>
>
>
> I then looked at the list of key players in AMEG as listed
> at: http://www.ameg.me/index.php/about-ameg . There are 6
> of these who also use this Crisis Forum list with reasonable
> regularity. Their names and descriptors there are given by
> AMEG as follows:
>
>
>
> Peter Carter MD (Canada),
>
> Graham Ennis former aerospace engineer (UK),
>
> Dr Brian Orr former Principle Scientific Officer, Department
> of the Environment (UK),
>
> Veli lber Kallio chairman of Frozen Isthmuses Protection
> Campaign (Finland/UK),
>
> Jon Hughes ex-editor Ecologist (UK),
>
> John Nissen MA (UK)
>
>
>
> I then undertook the same experiment with each of these names,
> again looking only at the first page to come up on Google
> Scholar since Google prioritises search importance. Not one of
> them had a featured publication. This is not to say that not
> one of them has published. Only that not one of them fits
> Google’s criteria for being a significant climate change
> scholar.
>
>
>
> AMEG troubles me for a number of reasons. One is its use of
> non-peer-review-published research. This is something that I
> have taken up privately with AMEG associate Prof Steven Salter
> and since he is an old colleague, I will keep that discussion
> private. Another is that AMEG appears to have acquired
> considerable media traction and some political traction. To
> that, I’d say “well done”, were it not that the scientific
> basis falls below most accepted standards. Third, there is the
> style and intensity of AMEG’s assertive bombardment of this
> list, like a stuck record player evangelising us for
> geoengineering when several of us have clearly stated why we
> do not wish to be pushed down that road.
>
>
>
> Personally, my wish would be three things. First, that AMEG
> members consider setting up their own discussion site to push
> geoengineering as the supposed solution to Arctic warming.
> Those of us who want to follow their debates can do so there.
> Secondly, that they also play out the more technical aspects
> of their debates on forums like RealClimate, where active
> published researchers will be more able to engage with them. I
> would love to see such outcome, and have considerable respect
> for such a process. And third, that the AMEG members remain a
> part of this list, but not as an AMEG lobby group. There is no
> other lobby group using this list, so why AMEG? It causes all
> of them to be tarred with the brush of a group of interlopers
> engaged in list capture, which is a pity, because I have also
> learned some very useful things from some of the AMEG member
> contributions. In short, for me, I don’t want to see all six
> of you go. I just want to feel I’m not being targeted by a
> caucus pushing its own agenda. But I do understand, and
> appreciate, your passion.
>
>
>
> All the best,
>
>
>
> Alastair
>
>
>
>
>
> From:Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin
> Coleman
> Sent: 14 August 2012 21:33
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Greenland
>
>
>
> Yet another misunderstanding in the making. I did not vilify
> anyone and neither did I intentionally infer any personal
> attack on anyone so the charges levelled in my direction are
> being overblown.
> All I ask is the evidence and proof to support your assertions
> (if you are one of these geoengineers who is advocating the
> grand experiments on the planetary scale).
> If none of you is willing to provide the evidence and the
> proof along with the simple calculations referring to the use
> of minerals on a large (and I mean a very large) scale then
> how can you argue in favour of this untried and untested
> experiment? It is totally useless to even commence an
> experiment that will only stall the inevitable if the
> inevitable is going to happen. You make grand claims but there
> is a hidden agenda behind this all and to be honest I dislike
> hidden agendas.
> So come on people. Lets hear the evidence and see the
> calculations.
> Regards
> Kev C
>
>
>
>
>
> From:Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kevin
> Coleman
> Sent: 14 August 2012 21:28
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Greenland
>
>
>
> Maybe you too should read again the postings that I placed
> here. Maybe you too should understand that the comment from Mr
> Nissen re 'The only solution is geoengineering' is a somewhat
> biased and dismissive comment re any alternatives to the
> current problem. Now I live on this planet too and I will not
> allow you or your fellow geoengineers to trash my planet just
> so that you can play mad scientists with the only planet we
> have to live on.
> My life is the only one I have got and I am damned well
> entitled to defend my life against the idiots who will not
> even stand up and answer several very simple questions of
> accountability and mathematical book balancing. Instead the
> same old hoary chestnut of slagging me and my kind off because
> (as your friend put it) we want to bury our heads in the sand
> and do nothing. Wrong. I have spent the better part of the
> last 20 years doing something about an awful lot more issues
> than climate change.
> To illustrate the point if I and many hundreds of thousands of
> others like me had not stood our ground against the people in
> power who wanted to do things that would cause damage beyond
> your wildest nightmares, or stood up against the corporations
> who want simply to profit from others suffering then we would
> not even be here to have this discussion right here and now.
> So please do not address me like some wayward child. I am
> probably quite a bit older than you and probably a darned
> sight more worldly wise too, but that will wait for another
> day.
> First things first though.
> Answer the questions legitimately with your evidence so that
> your grand designs can be subjected to the utmost and fair
> scrutiny in the most transparent way possible. If you do not
> then you will be demonstrating guilt which would imply that
> you have something to hide which will do your cause no good
> whatsoever.
> Alternatively you can drop your chemistry experiments as I
> personally think that we humans have already done enough mad
> experiments as it is hence the state of the planet. The only
> solution worth trying is not the quick geo fix but the
> sensible uniting of the human race behind one common cause of
> reducing our polluting consumption and stopping the grand
> powers of finance from speculating the planet into oblivion.
> So lets hear the answers and please provide the
> incontrovertible evidence in terms understandable to 'ALL'
> people. Not everyone with a stake in living on this planet is
> a scientist nor do they all understand the technical
> references.
> Regards
> Kev C
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Christopher
> Shaw
> Sent: 14 August 2012 19:05
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Greenland
>
>
>
>
> I am sorry if you have been subject to personal vilification
> Peter, but I think it a little unfair, and simply incorrect,
> to level such a charge at the whole listserv group.
>
>
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Carter
> Sent: 14 August 2012 18:33
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Greenland
>
>
>
>
> Hello Criris-forum, I am shocked at your personal attacks on
> John Nissen and members of the Arctic Methane Emergency
> Group.
>
>
>
>
>
> I have never come across anything like this on a listserv.
>
>
>
>
>
> Do you not have a protocol for the listserv on civility ?
>
>
>
>
>
> Instead of addressing the overwhelming evidence on the loss of
> Arctic albedo and its catastrophic consequences without
> intervention, you stoop to knee jerk personal invectives
> against those trying to warn the world of the coming planetary
> catastrophe.
>
>
>
>
>
> I joined this listserv in the expectation that the group would
> certainly have recognized that the unprecedented extent and
> rate atmospheric greenhouse gas pollution is the greatest
> threat to humanity and wished to do something.
>
>
>
>
>
> Have you formulated an opinion on the global warming climate
> change and ocean acidification planetary emergency?
>
>
> If so are you doing anything to warn the world about it.
>
>
> If so what would your emergency response proposals be?
>
>
>
>
>
> I have sent scientific evidence, but all I got back was a
> dismissive personally rude response from one listserv member.
>
>
>
>
>
> Here is a reference from James Hansen made a public statement
> in 2008 that the world was in a state of planetary emergency
> and whose book published published in 2009 is entitled Storms
> of My Grandchildren The Truth about the Coming Climate
> Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity.
>
>
>
>
>
> Climate Tipping Points
>
>
> Methane Hydrate ‘frozen methane’ - In Tundra & On Continental
> Shelves
>
>
> Methane is an especially powerful greenhouse gas. There are
> large amounts of methane
>
>
> presently locked up, frozen, in high latitude tundra and,
> especially, in ocean sediments on
>
>
> continental shelves. We know from Earth’s history that this
> frozen methane can be released
>
>
> suddenly by sufficient warming – thus this methane has the
> potential to greatly amplify humanmade global warming, if that
> warming reaches a level, a tipping point, such that large
> volumes of frozen methane begin to melt.
>
>
>
>
>
> Global Warming Time Bomb: Actions Needed to Avert Disaster
>
>
> James Hansen
>
>
> 26 October 2009
>
>
> Club of Rome Global Assembly 2009
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It is a cruel libel to infer (more than once) that AMEG has
> ulterior motives of moneymaking from geo-engineering
> intervention.
>
>
>
>
>
> We provide our time for no profit and we provide our own funds
> in order to communicate this vital information.
>
>
>
>
>
> Do you people understand the fundamental climate science of
> today's committed global warming? The ocean heat lag alone, as
> has been known since the first IPCC assessment in 1990,
> commits us to double today's warming.
>
>
>
>
>
> Do you know that atmospheric methane having increased 2 1/2
> times since industrialisation following the large decline in
> Arctic summer sea ice in 2007, has been on a renewed
> sustained and fast increase which is due to planetary feedback
> methane emissions.
>
>
>
>
>
> If so kindly connect the dots between these two indisputable
> facts.
>
>
>
>
>
> So far as I'm aware AMEG is the only group trying to warn the
> world that allowing the Arctic summer snow and sea ice albedo
> cooling to melt away would sooner or later to quote John
> Nissen lead to a planetary methane catastrophe.
>
>
>
>
>
> It is also the only group warning the world that there is an
> immediate effect from the loss of this albedo cooling on the
> Northern hemisphere which is to increase climate variability
> and drought in that temperate regions of the Northern
> hemisphere- the best food producing regions in the world.
>
>
>
>
>
> You might take note of AMEG ’s hotly disputed warning (which
> was John Nissen's motive for the AMEG initiative) that the
> rapid rate of decline of the Arctic sea ice volume indicates
> the Arctic will become virtually free of sea ice for a period
> within a few years, and not within a matter of decades as the
> majority of the sea ice scientist relying on their own
> computer models continue to insist. The trends of sea ice
> decline this year strongly indicate that AMEG is right.
>
>
>
>
>
> Please note that AMEG is advocating only a limited regional
> cooling of the Arctic- which is a very different proposition
> to planetary cooling.
>
>
>
>
>
> You say there are plenty of other solutions. Kindly advise on
> how long these solutions would take to control the increase in
> global warming climate change and ocean acidification.
>
>
>
>
>
> If we are all concerned about the future of humanity and life
> on this most precious and wonderful planet, surely we can
> discuss the emergency situation in an intelligent reasoned and
> civil manner. What hope has humanity got if we who are
> concerned cannot do this?
>
>
>
>
>
> Please do not respond to this message at all if it is more
> insults and unkindness.
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter Carter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Veli Albert
> Kallio
> Sent: 14 August 2012 15:47
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Greenland
>
>
>
> Dear Kevin,
>
> There is no misunderstanding here. The US Republican Party via
> their Vice-Presidential Nominee for the United States, Paul
> Ryan, has stated that global warming is caused by: (1) sun
> spots, (2) cosmic rays, (3) volcanoes speing CO2, and (4)
> University of East Anglia "fabricating" all evidence.
>
> In addition he has promised to end funding of renewables
> and increase the subsidies given to the oil and gas
> industries. He also has promised to eliminate limits on
> greenhouse pollutants, sack all climate advisers to the
> White House, close down Department of Energy Advanced Research
> Projects Agency (ARPA-E). This is the programme of Mitt
> Romney, the Tea Partyism and the US Republicans in the US
> Congress and Senate.
>
> Kevin, I find it disgusting to criticise John Nissen as you
> could yourselves go to the web page of the Tea
> Party candidates and easily find it out yourselves that the
> United States aren't going to decrease their CO2 emissions but
> to raise them 50% instead over the next half a century:
>
> http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/08/11/677051/meet-paul-ryan-climate-denier-conspiracy-theorist-koch-acolyte/?mobile=nc
>
> As the United States under the Republican Party are going only
> to incrase the consumption of fossil fuels, geoengineering is
> the only option if we wish to curtail the greenhouse effect as
> the USA is unwilling to admit CO2 from power industry, cars
> and planes being the primary contributor.
>
> Shame on you. Please, apologise John.
>
> Regards,
>
> Albert
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: Kevin Coleman Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 1:41 AM
>
>
> To: [log in to unmask]
>
>
> Subject: Re: Greenland
>
>
>
>
>
> Mr Nissen,
> You are now treading on very thin ice, hypothetically
> speaking. Since when have you had the god given right to
> dictate to the rest of humanity what should be done re the
> Arctic sea ice decline? You spout off about geoengineering
> claiming (erroneously) that it is the only solution to the
> problem. Says who? You? What authority do you have to dismiss
> all other possibilities and alternatives so
> indiscriminatingly? I resent the idea that my future survival
> will be totally dependent upon your crackpot theories for
> which you still (despite being given adequate opportunity)
> have not presented adequate proof of function and
> reliability. There can be no full scale field trials without
> there being full scale damage limitation procedures put in
> place first. You have provided none in any shape or form.
> You have totally neglected to cover the 'What if it goes
> wrong' scenarios and specialised solely upon how much to
> charge people for the 'Service' provided. Like I said in a
> previous message why do I get the impression that you put
> this idea forward as if it is a business venture (and I add
> here) rather than a service to the planet and
> (reluctantly because I don't think we deserve it) humanity?
>
> As for alternatives I have provided plenty of them and there
> is and has never been any suggestion on my part to 'do
> nothing'. As for people threatened by rising sea levels the
> solutions I provide would mitigate for this despite your
> feeble attempt to make me feel guilty about the harm done
> to others. If anyone should be feeling guilty it is you for
> even daring to suggest arrogantly that geoengineering is the
> only solution and as I repeatedly state it is a dangerous last
> roll of the desperate dice to get out of jail free. One which
> if it should somehow work, even slightly (as I know just how
> much scientists and their corporate backers hate to be proven
> wrong) then it will merely give the green light to the
> polluting corporations to carry on with the business as usual
> scenario and stuff the rest of us.
> I trust that you will now retract your statement alluding to
> the only solution being geoengineering and cease to
> harangue those of us with your demeaning and guilty
> conscience tricks. I openly and honestly advocate for extreme
> caution with this geoengineering quick fix, which I feel is
> dangerously unreliable inadequately tested, still not fully
> explained and subject to natural environmental variations and
> challenges that your game plan does not take fully into
> account.
> If I am banned from this forum for speaking my mind firmly
> and fairly then at least I will be banned standing my ground
> and not because I avoided the difficult questions.
> It won't change the facts. It will merely mean that you and
> your cohorts have exercised undue license to silence a critic
> for whom you have not adequately answered the questions put to
> you.
>
> I await your response.
> Regards
> Kev C
>
> 'Corporatism. It's most similar forebear is feudalism.'
>
> On 14/08/2012 07:28, John Nissen wrote:
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> This business of it happening every 150 years is like
> a get-out-of-jail-free card. A more subtle version is
> "this hasn't happened for x number of years" - because
> it can be used when the record only goes back that
> number of years. Such statements allow the reader to
> escape from unpleasant conclusions. In the case of
> the Greenland Ice Sheet, one knows that the Arctic is
> heating up very rapidly, so it's nice to think that
> the extraordinary surface melting has nothing to do
> with that heating - it is just a freak event. What
> would small island nations think if they knew that
> leading scientists were in denial about the inexorable
> melting of an ice sheet that will bring 6 or 7 metres
> of sea level rise? Surely they would demand that the
> melting should be stopped, if that were possible.
> Well, it is possible, but only through geoengineering
> to cool the Arctic as a whole, which is what AMEG is
> advocating. (Sea level rise is only one of the
> devastating consequences of allowing the sea ice to
> disappear. Of most immediate consequence is a
> deepening global food crisis [1].)
>
> Cheers,
>
> John
>
> [1]
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-reese-halter/missing-sea-ice-ameg-and-_b_1753994.html
>
> ---
>
> On 13/08/2012 22:10, Alastair McIntosh wrote:
>
> Here’s the implications that are now following through
> from that issue we debated on this forum last month
> about supposedly cyclical Greenland warming. The BBC’s
> Roger Harrabin reports today on a study suggestive
> that Greenland ice is melting very much faster than
> expected. But his report
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19244895
> ends with the statement:
>
>
>
> Last month a Nasa news release headlined news of an
> "unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface melt".
> Images showed that in July, 97% of Greenland's ice
> sheet experienced some degree of melting at the
> surface in July.
>
> Many readers assumed that manmade climate change was
> being blamed. But Laura Koenig, a Goddard
> glaciologist, confirmed in the same news release that
> melting events of this nature happen naturally on
> average every 150 years.
>
> "If it continues it will be worrisome," she said.
>
> Incidentally, Harrabin in my personal experience is
> one of the good guys. I am not seeking to orchestrate
> a complaints bombardment.
>
>
>
> Alastair.
>
> ********************************************************
> * Website: www.AlastairMcIntosh.com
> *
> * Email: [log in to unmask]
> *
> * Alastair McIntosh
> * 26 Luss Road
> * Drumoyne
> * Glasgow G51 3YD
> * Scotland
> * Tel: +44 (0)141 445 8750
> *
>
> * Quick web links: My Books Articles Work
>
> *~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
