Sentences with phrase «about geoengineering research»

Perhaps the clearest message was about the geoengineering research community itself.

The Forum for Climate Engineering Assessment drafted and organized the following letter regarding a November 8, 2017 U.S. House of Representatives Science, Space, and Technology Committee hearing about geoengineering research.

Not exact matches

Yet the new endorsement of geoengineering research comes amid deep uncertainty about the direction that climate research will take under the new administration of President - elect Donald Trump.

The study about the research was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences under the title «Stratospheric solar geoengineering without ozone loss.»

Rasch addressed the Subcommittees on Energy and Environment about the need for a research program to study geoengineering and how such a program might be designed.

(That's one of the reasons I think that the talk about geoengineering is essential, and even more essential than bloviation on that front is practical research, testing and efforts to build management systems.

a) Someone who is seriously concerned about climate might well argue that that we need to research geoengineering techniques, especially when we can do it cheap, just in case.

Prior to the pivotal 2006 intervention by Paul Crutzen (22), which «opened the floodgates» (15), there prevailed a near - unanimous taboo against geoengineering research precisely because of anxieties about the political uses to which it could be put.

Read more about the two groups of toxins ---- GMOs and geoengineering spray ingredients at More bad news about GMOs: «By 2025, half the kids born in the U.S. will be diagnosed with autism», Dr. Stephanie Seneff, Senior Research Scientist at MIT http://www.worldhealth.net/forum/thread/100941/more-bad-news-about-gmos-by-2025-half/?page=1#post-100941 A clear and present danger: A NO - RETURN EARTH - CATASTROPHE BY SEPTEMBER 2015.

Much — but not all — of this research has raised ethical concerns about some geoengineering techniques, particularly those belonging to the category of solar radiation management.

For these reasons, we analyze the content of expert understandings of equity and raise some questions about who and what gets excluded from expert discourses of equity in the context of solar geoengineering research.

While teaching about this I got excited about doing more research and ultimately, at John Hopkins, Simon Nicholson from American University and I decided that there should be a think tank that would try to ensure that if we do decide to look at climate geoengineering as a society, that we include all of the stakeholders... That was one of the fears we had, so the purpose of these kind of forums are to ensure that other stakeholders like NGOs and the general public — who would be affected by these technologies — are a part of the conversation.

It's good to see so many people willing to speak out on line, as they continue researching the chemtrail / geoengineering issue and educating others who care about what's happening.

Atmosphere of Hope does a decent job of talking about geoengineering in a broader climate policy context, but at times seems poorly researched.

In other words, in the face of poor progress on mitigation, let's not be caught with our pants down again, and start talking about (and researching and testing) geoengineering while there is still time.

Here is a paper published in the Journal PLOS Biology by Dr. Watson that goes into more detail about the governance of geoengineering research.

He also noted significant decline in forest health and began testing and researching into geoengineering about a decade ago.

Ethicist Stephen Gardiner has suggested a quite different reason for not worrying about the disincentive effects of geoengineering research.

It's about getting the balance right between the different functions of geoengineering research governance

Anyway - I'm surprised that in that article, you seem to be focusing the conclusion from the study towards whether to research geoengineering or not - rather than the underlying lessons to be gained about how to make science communication less polarizing.

George, I am hot and cold about your encouraging geoengineering, though you are not advocating any particular line of research or end product.

Kahan's own research has shown that people who might be identified as technophiles are more likely to concede that climate change is a problem if they are given information about possible technological fixes, such as geoengineering.

Research shows that the UK public share some of these concerns; in surveys, very few people were unconditionally positive about the concept of geoengineering.

If nuclear winter research is not scientific, then why are the Russians having a conference about geoengineering?