What do you think, and why do you ask?

The National Academies do speak for all member scientists, and most of us trust the leadership to make judgments that are scientifically based. In this example, the statement adresses both “adaptation” and “mitigation.” Adaptation is a social and political process while mitigation is where technology and natural science could play a role.

I do think there is a consensus that anything that might work should be considered. The National Academies do not and should not have the power to approve large scale experiments in carbon sequestration or geoengineering.

If the U.S. National Academies release a report that they were contracted to do, or even if the report was funded by internal money, there’s a charge, or specific questions, that the report is trying to respond to. While not devoid of advocacy (see Rising Above the Gathering Storm), these reports are usually considered policy-oriented research projects.

The question here is when those Academies, or the collection of Academies in this example, make a specific appeal for particular policy outcomes, absent a specific request or typical report process, who are they speaking for, and what authority are they relying on for their message to have an impact?

So it’s not an issue of whether the desired actions should be done, it’s what the outcomes are of this request coming from this group of Academies. While they don’t spell it out, they appear to speak for themselves. By not spelling it out, the presumption is that they represent the scientific communities and scientific consensus in their countries (which may or may not be true).

Both geoengineering and CCS are contested technologies.

For example, the recent discussions of the UN Convention on Biodiversity proposed a moratorium on certain geoengineering experiments:

http://media.cleantech.com/2954/climos-ocean-iron-fertilization-OIF-proceed-ocean-nourishment

CCS is opposed by various environmental groups:

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/may/06/capturing-awareness/

“They represent sanity and their advocacy is legitimate on the grounds of sanity.

What is your point here, Roger, beyond criticizing some well-informed groups who are begging the world to take the action needed to avert catastrophe?”

Is it your point that you are the holder of the truth and that anyone who doesn’t share your catastrophic point of view is either ill informed or insane.

Personally I would prefer that we spend a lot more money on policy that could help the people suffering in the third world now than spend it on an highly uncertain future based on highly uncertain science.

Are third world people living today worth less than the one in the future?

I assume by the emoticon wink you are aware that it is a logical fallacy to sayand that someone who does not agree 100% with another person is in fact the opposite of that person.

In any case, I don’t know many experts in this area who think we should not pursue either “geoengineering research” or the development of CCS technology. I believe the IPCC is on record saying this is an important strategy. I think you are looking for as controversy where it doesn’t really exist.

The statement is pretty innocuous, or it should be to anyone who believes we must stabilize at 450 to 500 ppm.

Smilerz: I don’t understand what you mean by “Just because you – feel that something must be done and this is something, so it must be done – doesn’t make it a legitimate response.”

This isn’t “something” picked out at random from a menu of possible goals and strategies.

The IPCC, the IEA, the National Academies, the G8 + 5 — heck, I’m pretty sure even Roger — all agree we need to cut emissions in half by 2050 if we are to keep concentrations of CO2 at acceptable levels. I’m assuming from your comment that you don’t.

Just because you – feel that something must be done and this is something, so it must be done – doesn’t make it a legitimate response.

So those opposed to carbon sequestration or geoengineering research can be classified as “insane”?

Believe it or not there are other issues worth discussing besides climate change, and the role of experts in democratic systems is one of those issues.

What is your point here, Roger, beyond criticizing some well-informed groups who are begging the world to take the action needed to avert catastrophe?

Since you say you endorse 450 to 500 ppm, and since that requires cutting CO2 emissions in half by mid-century as the academies correctly assert, why not spend time attacking the people who are trying to delay action, rather than those trying to encourage action?