Question to John Christy

[Wayne Hall]

Dear Doctor Christy,

I have just watched the interview with you on the Polites TV (Citizens' TV) channel of Crete.
epanastasi-gr.blogspot.com/2012/08/blog-post_4058.html

Although you were asked questions about carbon dioxide, about the commercial exploitation of climate change, and so on, you were not asked anything about geoengineering proposals.

Last year the geoengineering advocate Paul Crutzen visited Cyprus and said this in an interview with the local press (my translation):

NOBEL PRIZE WINNER PAUL CRUTZEN ON OUR ISLAND
13TH February 2011
Paula Tsoni

Nobel Prize winning atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen, pioneer in the study of climate change, was on our island this week as the guest of the Cyprus Institute.

In an exclusive interview with SIGMA and TODAY ON SUNDAY he declares that he is pessimistic about the future of the planet and reveals the theory he is studying as a last-ditch solution.

The Dutch scientist Paul Crutzen won the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 1995 for his study on ozone replacement. 15 years later, the chemicals that caused the hole in the ozone layer have been banned and the Nobel Prize winning scientist predicts that in fifty years the ozone layer will have recovered. The most serious threat to the planet today, he said to SIGMA during his brief stay on our island as the guest of the Cyprus Institute, is global warming.

"œIf we continue to burn fossil fuel, the problem will not be solved and there will be further deterioration. I have not seen any effective action that would practically reduce the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. If global warming continues, in fifteen years we will be obliged to resort to the last-ditch solution of artificial cooling of the planet through injections of sulphur into the stratosphere."

"œI hope that we will never need to implement this, but if the temperature increases more than two degrees Celsius on average, we will have to proceed with the experiment of sulphur injections. We will have to be careful because there may be side effects worse than the greenhouse phenomenon. Some studies indicate that sulphur emissions in the stratosphere will reduce ozone levels, allowing a greater amount of ultra-violet radiation to reach the surface of the earth," the Nobel Prize winning scientist said.

As for the future of the planet:

"œIt is very difficult to be optimistic, but negativism is no solution. If we act I will be very happy. However, at the moment that is not happening. But let's not give up," declared Mr. Crutzen.

(end of quotation)

Dr. Christy would you like to have been asked on the TV interview about your attitude to geoengineering proposals such as those of Paul Crutzen?

The climate scientist Tim Ball, whose ideas on anthropogenic climate change I understand to be similar to yours, says that he thinks Crutzen's Nobel Prize should be taken away for making insane proposals. Would you agree with Tim Ball's view?

Even if you would not agree, would you have welcomed being asked questions on geoengineering, and particularly "solar radiation management", in the television interview with you that I saw on Cretan TV?

Hoping to hear from you,

Wayne Hall
www.enouranois.gr

[Wayne Hall]

2.

Wayne:

We have such little understanding of the climate system now, it would
be foolish in my view to embark on a radical, pollution-inducing
project in the stratosphere, not knowing exactly what might happen.

John C.

3.

On 8/30/12 7:34 AM, Wayne Hall wrote:
Hello John,


Thanks for your reply. I wonder why the interviewer didn't talk to you
about geoengineering. It is one of the subjects that is discussed here,
including by people around Citizens' TV.

What do you say to those who argue that radical pollution-inducing
projects are already in planetary application (citing the evidence of
their senses)?


The official line seems to be that this is not so and that people who
have the opposite view are just imagining things.


I have not seen any public debates between people like Paul Crutzen and
people of opposite views on climate such as yourself. Crutzen argues
that it is because of you that he has to propose spraying of the
stratosphere with sulphates. You and the geoengineers seem to be kept
in separate compartments, sending your separate and conflicting messages
to the public. I have never seen 'solar radiation management' advocates
making geoengineering proposals to the face of people with your views on
climate.


Hope you feel able to continue this discussion.


Regards,
Wayne Hall
Aegina
First capital of modern Greece

--------------------------------------------------

4.

Wayne

I think your questions are answered in the attached Senate testimony I
gave earlier this month - especially about how CO2 is the obvious
outcome of giving people longer and better lives.

John C.


5.

John,

I skimmed through the paper you attached and it is not addressing the
specific points I asked you to address.

It seems that we are going to have to rely on groups like the ETC group, who
are not climate change sceptics, to mount dynamic opposition to the worst
geoengineering proposals. Of course they fudge certain things also, but
perhaps they have no choice if they want to be "players", however minor.
Climate change sceptics like Lomborg have moved from being sceptics to being
advocates of geoengineering and perhaps this is the movement we can expect
generally.

I sense that if I really try to engage you in debate you will withdraw from
it. The political system, and the academic world, wants to continue
dividing the public rather than enabling them to understand what is
happening.

In any case, thank you for confirming what I already thought.

Enjoy the rest of your stay in Greece. We are hospitable here.

Wayne Hall

6.

From: "John Christy"
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:47 PM
To: "Wayne Hall" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: Interview in Herakleion, Crete

Wayne:

There is some misunderstanding. I am not in Greece. I visited Crete in
early May for five days and spoke at the Aquarium. I was not aware of
Crutzen's visit nor was anyone who interviewed me after my lecture.

I don't think geoengineering will happen. It is too expensive and too
uncertain in its results (who would be liable when/if something goes
wrong?). However, energy production will continue to rise for the reasons
stated in the testimony. I also touch on that here in a blogpost about
why we desire affordable energy.

www.drroyspencer.com/2012/08/fun-with-summer-statistics-part-2-the-northern-hemisphere-land/

There have been numerous debates, primarily on Capitol Hill in House and
Senate Hearings which you can probably find by searching
www.capitolhearings.org/. I'm sure there have been some on
geoengineering specifically - look under the Committee on Science, Space
and Technology and search for geoengineering.

Good luck.

John C.

7.

Hello John,

Sorry, I thought the conference was still continuing in Crete, because of
this link that came to our attention today:
epanastasi-gr.blogspot.com/2012/08/blog-post_4058.html

with the title "Who profits from climate change?".

Crutzen was not in Crete but in Cyprus, and it was last year, not this year,
but it generated some discussion, and there is in fact a lot of discussion
going on about weather modification, with people like Bill Gates getting
into the act.

Are you familiar with the films of Michael Murphy?


www.infowars.com/why-in-the-world-are-they-spraying-full-length-documentary-hd/

They are regarded as "beyond the pale" but they are influencing public
discussion on climate change. Quite apart from the assertion that
geoengineering is already a planetary reality, which it is not necessary to
argue about as there are many other aspects of the situation on which
discussion can be focused, there is unquestionably a powerful drive underway
at this moment to for geoengineering proposals to acquire respectability and
acceptance..

What one never sees is a face-to-face confrontation between a climate change
sceptic such as yourself and an advocate of geoengineering, or indeed even
an opponent of geoengineering, FOCUSED ON GEOENGINEERING, NOT ON THE CLIMATE
CHANGE DEBATE, which can easily function as a diversion if the subject of
interest is geoengineering.

Would there be any possibility of organizing a public discussion of
geoengineering between someone such as yourself and, say, Pat Mooney, who is
opposed to geoengineering but avoids the arguments of the chemtrails
activists about whether geoengineering is actually happening?

This is what Mooney had to say after Rio+20.


You can see that he does not share your sanguine attitude to the prospects
of geoengineering, and the commodification of nature generally, acquiring
respectability and support. He thinks that the geoengineers are steadily
gaining ground.

I think it is very important for discussion of geoengineering to be freed
from the noise of the climate change debate. After all Edward Teller, one of
the original proponents of solar radiation management, was a climate change
sceptic!!!

Best wishes,
Wayne Hall
Aegina, Greece
(p.s. perhaps this whole discussion has to be removed from politics and the
universities, as at Long Island in New York state, where the local
legislature tried to come to grips with it. And indeed the same happened IN
2003 here in Aegina , where the present deputy mayor took the subject to the
council and tried to initiate public debate, until advised by lawyers that
there were no grounds on which he could proceed).

[Wayne Hall]

On 10/4/12 12:24 AM, Wayne Hall wrote:
> John,
>
> An attempt has been programmed to start in late November an organization
> against geoengineering, with a meeting in Brussels. We would like at
> this meeting to have a videoed debate between you and Pat Mooney of the
> ETC group. You have diametrically opposite views on the subject of
> climate change, but we don't want to talk about climate change. We want
> to talk about geoengineering, and in particular ideas like solar
> radiation management. Pat tends rather to think that a climate change
> skeptic will not want to talk about anything other than climate change
> but we don't want to think that such narrow-mindedness would be the norm
> for climate change skeptics. The implications of climate change
> skepticism would surely be that geoengineering, particularly the most
> controversial forms of it, is unnecessary. Surely most climate change
> skeptics will not be like Lomborg, who moved from being a climate change
> skeptic to being an advocate of geoengineering.
>
> At the moment there are big political movements inspired by climate
> change skepticism, for example the movement against the Carbon Tax in
> Australia. Surely the political dynamic of such movements should also be
> harnessed against other racketeeering schemes such as geoengineering.
> Perhaps the proposed videoed debate with Pat Mooney could focus on your
> idea that "geoengineering will not happen. It is too expensive and too
> uncertain in its results (who would be liable when/if something goes
> wrong?)". Pat would certainly have a different view on this, as
> geoengineering proposals are quite evidently going from strength to
> strength.
>
> So, would you be willing in principle to have this videoed debate??? We
> hope so, because we want the dynamic of climate change scepticism also
> to be harnessed to projects that can serve to unite citizens, and not
> perpetuate old arguments. The central issue today is surely "the
> Financialization of Nature":
>
>
> Hoping for a favourable response,
>
> Wayne Hall
> Aegina, Greece
>


Wayne:

First, I'm unfamiliar with Pat Mooney so don't know what
agreement/disagreements there might be. The issue of geoengineering is
not one I deal with on basis I would feel comfortable debating. Where
it comes into my realm is that with so many unconstrained degrees of
freedom in the climate system, there really is no confident way one can
predict and attribute changes due to geoengineering. The liability
issue also will never be settled, not to mention the colossal costs, so
it's pretty much a non-starter in the real world of politics, citizen
law-suits, budgeting, etc.

John C.

On 10/4/12 7:18 AM, Wayne Hall wrote:
> Given that so many totally unacceptable geoengineering ideas are gaining
> ground, though, and fast, and given that climate change sceptics are
> also apparently becoming politically stronger, wouldn't it be
> appropriate for an equal amount of the energy that is being devoted e.g.
> to stopping the Carbon Tax should be devoted to stopping another racket
> in the making?
>
> If you would like to get some practice through private preliminary
> discussion with Pat Mooney, who is with the ETC group
> www.etcgroup.org/ I presume that could be arranged. I could
> ask him anyway. We are disturbed at the way that so much of the debate
> around these subjects seems to be at cross purposes and divisive. This
> leaves the public helpless because if scientists can't get their act
> together and reach some kind of agreement, what hope is there for
> non-scientists, when it comes to scientific subjects. This doesn't have
> to be an agreement about climate change. It could be agreement that the
> financialisation of nature is undesirable.
>
> What do you say???
>
> Wayne

Wayne:

Wayne:

For many reasons I would rather pass on this invitation. Another
well-spoken "skeptic" is my colleague Roy Spencer
([e-mail]). You may want to contact him.

John C.

Dear Mr Spencer,

Your name has been mentioned by John Christy as a possible alternative to
the participation in a video debate with Pat Mooney for which Mr. Christy
himself does not wish to accept our invitation. Would you be willing and
able to do it?

Looking forward to hearing from you.


Wayne Hall
Aegina, Greece


Hello again John,

We have not received any reply from Roy Spencer. Would you be able to say a
few words to him yourself so that we can see if he is more willing than you
are to be involved in a video debate with Pat Mooney???

Hope you can oblige. Thanks.

Regards,

Wayne Hall