 |
 |
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