 |
 |
Maybe the biggest problem is that we on this group are in no position to do anything about the Arctic icecap anyway. This is an interesting forum for debate and exchange of thoughts, insights, information etc, but that's as far as it goes. It has no executive powers, no money, and no influence beyond its members. So we can debate away ad infinitum and it will make no difference to anything. If AMEG want to make a difference - which they surely do - they should stop wasting their time and energy on this forum, except maybe to refine their arguments before presenting them to a greater audience, and take their arguments elsewhere and beyond where there is some potential of triggering action. Oliver. On 30/08/2012 17:03, John Nissen wrote: > Hi Mark, > > I know I'm a main culprit. But, please, Mark, could you let people > answer my two questions (see below) before you close down? A yes > answer to either question would be most interesting. > > Thanks, > > John > > -- > > On 30/08/2012 17:14, Mark Levene wrote: >> good forumers, >> >> primarily those of you who are writing endlessly on this >> Arctic-cum-geoengineering subject. >> >> Yes, it is no doubt VERY important. >> >> But a consequence is that I am now getting other forumers coming to me >> directly stating that they are very antagonised and have had enough >> of it! >> Either between you you call a halt or I will use my moderating >> 'power' to >> instil a bit of geo-engineering of MY own - it won't stop you, of >> course, >> but it will halt the escalating argument for the time being i.e. I will >> shut-down the List for a short holiday. I'm looking into this NOW! >> >> it's up to you folks...... As I warned earlier: either you opt for a >> self-denying ordinance or CF through its moderators will have to >> gently gag >> you until you have all had time to think about it. AND clearly, some >> of you >> haven't been listening! Perhaps, anyway, you all need a good rest from >> this one! (like the biosphere the discussion is getting perilously >> over-heated!!) >> thank you, >> and rather firmly, this time, >> mark >> >> >> >> on 30/8/12 2:43 pm, John Nissen at [log in to unmask] wrote: >> >>> 1. Is there anybody on this forum who is not terrified by the speed of >>> what's happening in the Arctic, with the collapse of the sea ice and >>> escalating methane emissions?* >>> >>> 2. Is there anybody who would not favour rapid action, if this could >>> prevent the situation getting out of hand? >>> >>> John >>> >>> * I'm told that Sir David King turned white when presented with the >>> evidence, but recovered within a few days to deny the danger - or that >>> he'd ever turned white! >>> >>> --- >>> >>> On 30/08/2012 15:18, Barker, Tom wrote: >>>> Engineers seem always view every problem as solely an engineering >>>> problem, and they are usually wrong to do so. If Julia Slingo is >>>> petrified, then we might assume that at least she understands the >>>> problem. High profile scientists and geographers may appear timid, but >>>> they are trying to balance the extreme nature of some interpretations >>>> of what the science is showing against the head-in-sand attitude of >>>> politicians, who are themselves subject to the onslaughts of economist >>>> advisers and lobbyists. These latter at least offer tangible and >>>> short-term benefits to the politicians. We do not. What is the point >>>> of vilifying people like Slingo and Lenton when they are the link to >>>> the politicians? >>>> >>>> As for geoengineering as a hope it will fend off further warming, or >>>> even induce cooling, I can say only that for every action there is an >>>> equal and opposite reaction. AMEG have chosen a method of >>>> geoengineering for that reason, but it could only ever be valid once >>>> all potential actions have been quantified and thoroughly assessed for >>>> their corresponding reactions. It is basic science. Have AMEG done >>>> this? Does the group have plans to do it? Do AMEG even know all the >>>> potential actions of the chosen method? I doubt it very much. A >>>> computer model is only as apt as its programming, and will not come up >>>> with anything new on its own. Even then, there needs to be people >>>> capable of interpreting every aspect of the output before the full >>>> consequences can be estimated. >>>> >>>> I am in favour of geoengineering because I think it is too late now >>>> for the alternatives to it to work on their own, but not at any cost, >>>> and certainly not before John's 'war cabinet' is assembled and >>>> starting to make sound decisions based on stopping GHG emissions, and >>>> sequestering carbon. Technologies exist to do this, and the biosphere >>>> is incredibly efficient at soaking up carbon, if it is given the >>>> chance. To lead such a war cabinet into adopting risky geoengineering >>>> projects simply because they are presented to it and seem like the >>>> line of least resistance is neither sensible or efficient. >>>> >>>> Personally I am fed up with this evangelism, especially as much of it >>>> comes from a position of ignorance (sensu lack of data). The Forum >>>> seems to have been hijacked by people unwilling to take an >>>> evidence-based view of the facts. Accordingly, this will be my last >>>> post. >>>> >>>> Regards to all, Tom >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> *From:* John Nissen [[log in to unmask]] >>>> *Sent:* 30 August 2012 14:43 >>>> *To:* Barker, Tom >>>> *Cc:* [log in to unmask]; David Tattershall >>>> *Subject:* Re: !Saving the Arctic is environmentalism's biggest >>>> challenge yet >>>> >>>> On the contrary. Brian (as an AMEG member) is trying to bring realism >>>> about the danger resulting from the rapid collapse of Arctic sea ice. >>>> It's happening absurdly quickly - unbelievably quickly. Prof Slingo, >>>> chief scientist at the Met Office said, in giving evidence to the EAC >>>> inquiry on protecting the Arctic, that she simply found the PIOMAS >>>> data on sea ice volume "not credible". She is behaving as if she is >>>> secretly petrified. AMEG is trying to face up to the reality of the >>>> sea ice collapse, happening at this very moment, and present a way >>>> forward out of the mess. Unfortunately the only way appears to be by >>>> engineered cooling of the Arctic. There's no way that the sea ice >>>> will "bounce back" on its own accord. Nor can greenhouse emissions >>>> reductions have much effect on the necessary timescale. >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> On 30/08/2012 10:35, Barker, Tom wrote: >>>>> Is that a sanitised way of admitting that the position you seem to >>>>> hold is simply not realistic? >>>>> >>>>> Cheerio, Tom >>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> >>>>> *From:* Brian Orr [[log in to unmask]] >>>>> *Sent:* 30 August 2012 10:19 >>>>> *To:* Barker, Tom >>>>> *Cc:* [log in to unmask] >>>>> *Subject:* Re: !Saving the Arctic is environmentalism's biggest >>>>> challenge yet >>>>> >>>>> Tom, >>>>> >>>>> I think we're both guilty of trying to find the 'killer argument' by >>>>> identifying the inescapable flaw in the other's position. >>>>> >>>>> Let's desist for the present (17th November not that far off) and >>>>> sign off on at least one important point of potential agreement. >>>>> >>>>> Would you agree that "It would be futile anyway to use >>>>> geoengineering if the world continues to pump GHGs into the >>>>> atmosphere and destroy forests,*etc*" >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> >>>>> Brian Orr >>>>> >>>>> On 30 Aug 2012, at 09:52, Barker, Tom wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Don't be ridiculous. You don't cut his head off because of a cut >>>>>> over one eye, however serious. >>>>>> >>>>>> The context of this 'debate' has turned from enquiring and knowledge >>>>>> into a sort of polarised and entrenched ignorance, with slurs >>>>>> against authentic viewpoints. Tim Lenton hasn't turned from 'bad' to >>>>>> 'good'. How absurdly naive. Science is a process, not an opinion. It >>>>>> is the way we look at a problem and be as sure as possible before we >>>>>> take action that may make it better or worse. One side may argue >>>>>> that it is too slow and the other that it is too fast, but only >>>>>> careful and robust study can say which side, if either, is right. >>>>>> >>>>>> There have been many passionate posts on CF of late, but I don't >>>>>> doubt that both sides are genuine in their concerns. One side says, >>>>>> 'look before you leap' and the other says, 'jump now, there's a >>>>>> lion'. Which is right? We don't actually know how close the lion is, >>>>>> or what's in the ravine we'll fall into. There may well also be a >>>>>> lion in there. All this arguing is about conjecture based on >>>>>> insufficient evidence with which to make reliable decisions. >>>>>> Sometimes you have to put up with that, and delay can be an enemy >>>>>> too, but let's at least have some idea of what will happen. Despite >>>>>> protestations from some on CF, we don't at present have much more >>>>>> than a clue. >>>>>> >>>>>> It would be futile anyway to use geoengineering whilst the world >>>>>> continues to pump GHGs into the atmosphere and destroy forests. If >>>>>> we can't stop that, nothing will help. We can't we spend our energy >>>>>> on trying to convince our government and all governments to do >>>>>> something about it? >>>>>> >>>>>> Tom >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> *From:*Brian Orr [[log in to unmask] >>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] >>>>>> *Sent:*29 August 2012 19:53 >>>>>> *To:*Barker, Tom >>>>>> *Cc:*[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>>>>> *Subject:*Re: !Saving the Arctic is environmentalism's biggest >>>>>> challenge yet >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry Tom, if a drug-addict comes into an A& E hospital bleeding >>>>>> profusely, the question of will he give up his life-threatening >>>>>> addiction >>>>>> is not of anybody's immediate concern. >>>>>> >>>>>> Of extreme concern once he has been saved of course, starting with >>>>>> the question 'Was it his addiction that led to his near-fatal >>>>>> accident?' >>>>>> >>>>>> Brian Orr >>>>>> >>>>>> On 28 Aug 2012, at 15:18, Barker, Tom wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Steady on. How many of us know what sort of education or >>>>>>> understanding Paul Beckwith or Kevin Coleman have? The former >>>>>>> apparently does not know the meaning of the term 'with all due >>>>>>> respect'. How do we know that he knows what he is talking about or >>>>>>> that Kevin Coleman does not? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To all, including members of AMEG, it must surely be clear that >>>>>>> geoengineering is not a solution as long as greenhouse gas >>>>>>> emissions, from all sources, continue to rise or stay steady. If >>>>>>> and when they can be brought down drastically, then it will be time >>>>>>> to consider whether geoengineering is worthwhile. My own opinion is >>>>>>> that we will need geoengineering because gas concentrations will >>>>>>> not be brought down quickly enough, but it would be foolhardy to >>>>>>> embark on it without a serious change of heart by governments >>>>>>> beforehand. >>>>>>> Tom >>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *From:*Discussion list for the Crisis Forum >>>>>>> [[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>] >>>>>>> on behalf of Kevin Coleman [[log in to unmask] >>>>>>> <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] >>>>>>> *Sent:*28 August 2012 15:06 >>>>>>> *To:*[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: !Saving the Arctic is environmentalism's biggest >>>>>>> challenge yet >>>>>>> >>>>>>> With all due respect. >>>>>>> As I have stated time and time again the ball is very firmly in >>>>>>> your court to prove emphatically that your schemes actually can >>>>>>> work. Until you do so it is you who will be judged as not knowing >>>>>>> what 'YOU' are talking about. I happen to adequately understand the >>>>>>> process of scientific assessment and how the processes of approval >>>>>>> work. You clearly do not respect the reasonable and very serious >>>>>>> concerns of the masses when you dismiss requests for proof and >>>>>>> as such have only served to further discredit your ideas still >>>>>>> further with your arrogant rebuttal of my statement. >>>>>>> I actually live here on this planet too. There has been no effort >>>>>>> on your parts (AMEG) to justify in any way the efficacy of the >>>>>>> proposed work. In fact all you have all claimed is that >>>>>>> geoengineering will sort out the mess. What sort of >>>>>>> geoengineering? >>>>>>> How certain is it to work? How long will the repairs last before a >>>>>>> repeat prescription is needed? All I have heard is how >>>>>>> geoengineering is the only way we can get our way out of trouble. >>>>>>> And this is all based on the Arctic Sea Ice disappearance as if >>>>>>> this was some sort of green light to geoengineer our way out of >>>>>>> trouble, whilst very probably getting us further into trouble. >>>>>>> It is that arrogance on your groups part that infuriates me to the >>>>>>> point of anger. >>>>>>> So as stated previously lay out your wares for us all to see. Show >>>>>>> us the proof. Not of ice melting but of this wonderful new invented >>>>>>> science that you all profess to be so expert in. >>>>>>> Until you can do that then I would say the rest of society should >>>>>>> continue to pursue sensible solutions to the crisis, ones we can >>>>>>> actually deliver without recourse to destroying vast ecosystems any >>>>>>> further, and continue to ignore the geoengineers lament. You will >>>>>>> only have yourselves to blame for that. >>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>> Kev C >>>>>>> 'Corporatism. It's most similar forebear is feudalism.' >>>>>>> On 27/08/2012 20:42, Paul Beckwith wrote: >>>>>>>> Kevin, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> With all due respect, you have no idea what you are talking >>>>>>>> about. No idea how science works. John and others would be best >>>>>>>> to continue their efforts and not spend time is ³proving² anything >>>>>>>> to yourself. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>> Paul Beckwith >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *From:*Discussion list for the Crisis Forum >>>>>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]*On Behalf Of*Kevin Coleman >>>>>>>> *Sent:*Monday, August 27, 2012 3:14 PM >>>>>>>> *To:*[log in to unmask] >>>>>>>> *Subject:*Re: !Saving the Arctic is environmentalism's biggest >>>>>>>> challenge yet >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Okay John, >>>>>>>> You keep claiming that geoengineering the Arctic Ice Sheet is the >>>>>>>> only solution. So prove it with facts, figures, calculations, >>>>>>>> projections, time-scales and logistics. The entire kit and boot >>>>>>>> bag. >>>>>>>> If you cannot do that then it pales into insignificance because >>>>>>>> all the other solutions put forward 'DO' work. All they need is a >>>>>>>> government with a spine to implement them and an educated >>>>>>>> population to grasp the ideas and the reasons for the drama. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Your tilting the agenda towards introducing a dangerous untested >>>>>>>> and untried laboratory experiment into the wide open environment >>>>>>>> without any consideration for the costs to all life on the planet. >>>>>>>> Please don't say you have considered these facts because you have >>>>>>>> not shown one iota of evidence on here other than supposition and >>>>>>>> theory and that is simply not good enough. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am angry because you and your friends are determined to totally >>>>>>>> destroy the planet and what for? To say 'Oops! Sorry! It didn't >>>>>>>> work'? Bit late then for any salvation isn't it? I live here too. >>>>>>>> I have a right to a life and your scaremongering the population is >>>>>>>> not solving anything. It is merely pushing people into making knee >>>>>>>> jerk decisions which will lead to our demise if not thought out >>>>>>>> properly and fully. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We have one planet not an entire universe of them so lets see the >>>>>>>> evidence to support your barmy ideas before we totally destroy >>>>>>>> everything. And don't try squirming out of it because I have asked >>>>>>>> several times now for the proof and it still has not been >>>>>>>> forthcoming. Don't post links or references to sites. I want a >>>>>>>> full dissertation with data lists and peer reviewed research >>>>>>>> before I would even believe it was theoretically possible to >>>>>>>> geoengineering the climate. Then you need to prove it works small >>>>>>>> scale without setting off a load of secondary shocks to the >>>>>>>> planet. Otherwise its a no go idea. >>>>>>>> Regards >>>>>>>> Kev C >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 'Corporatism. It's most similar forebear is feudalism.' >>>>>>>> On 27/08/2012 19:46, John Nissen wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This business of the Arctic sea ice disappearing is very >>>>>>>> frightening for anybody who understands the implications. But >>>>>>>> few scientists will admit to being frightened, especially >>>>>>>> people like Professor Julia Slingo, chief scientist at the Met >>>>>>>> Office, and promoter of Hadley Centre models. She has denied >>>>>>>> the evidence that AMEG showed at the Environment Audit >>>>>>>> Committee hearing on "protecting the Arctic". Now we can see >>>>>>>> our projections of imminent sea ice collapse coming true. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> AMEG can find no alternative for extrication from this >>>>>>>> situation except by cooling the Arctic. Nobody has suggested >>>>>>>> an alternative, except to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or >>>>>>>> to reduce black carbon. Neither of these will work to produce >>>>>>>> a cooling force - only geoengineering can do this. Even if >>>>>>>> GHG emissions and BC were reduced to zero overnight, global >>>>>>>> warming would continue, and so would the posi >