"In over thirty further conference events the focus will be on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and solar radiation management (SRM) measures. Among other things, participants will discuss whether the Paris Agreement goals can be achieved without climate engineering (Tuesday at 11 am), how climate policy should deal with the propagators of fake news (“Trumped!”, Wednesday at 9 am), and what rules should be set for research in a code of conduct (Thursday, 2 pm). Interactive events like the game “To Gabon or not to Gabon” (Tuesday at 4 pm) are designed to encourage an open exchange of views. " http://www.ce-conference.org/system...e_engineering_conference_2017_en_web.pdf
how climate policy should deal with the propagators of fake news (“Trumped!”, Wednesday at 9 am)
"Parallel Session 2..1: Trumped! A new politics of climate engineering?
Wednesday, 09:00 - 10:30 03 I Plenarsaal
The world faces political as well as environmental disruption. Academics tend to make rational-actor assumptions while bracketing the wilder, unpredictable aspects of politics. With short presentations and table discussions, we will explore implications for national and international politics of climate engineering of the Trump administration’s brand of climate denialism and other turns towards populism and authoritarianism.
October 11th 2017 in "Tagesthemen" (ARD, public TV): "Ad hoc haben wir uns so'n bißchen, daß wir irgendetwas sagen können, daß wir klar sagen können: dieses Ergebnis oder diese Nebenwirkungen sind so groß: 'Wir können das nicht verantworten.' Aber das sieht man in den Modellergebnissen so eben nicht, daß wir dieses starke Argument, daß unser persönliches Gefühl: 'Wir sind eigentlich gegen Geoengineering' bestärken würde. Das ist eben Etwas, das wir so in den Modellergebnissen tatsächlich nicht sehen." (Ulrike Niemeier) "Ad hoc we have somewhat ourselves, that we can say something, that we can say clearly: this result or these side effects are that big: 'We can not be responsible for this.' But this is not even seen in the model results, that we (have) this strong argument, that would strengthen our personal feeling: 'Actually, we are against Geoengineering.' That is even something, that in fact we don't see in the model results that way." (Translated by Denglisch) (Further information look: http://blauerhimmel.info/?page_id=347 )
Before discussing the statement of Ulrike Niemeier further it might be of relevance what the prestigious psychologist of King's College in London - Prof. Dr. Hans Jürgen Eysenck - once cited regarding the political relevance of theories: "A theory in science is a policy rather than a creed. J.J. Thomson" Eysenck, Hans Jürgen, The dynamics of anxiety and hysteria, New York 1957, page v.
This is quite a difference to what science ought to be - at least if you follow the logic - which is in my opinion common sense logic - of Richard Feynman as the video above and the picture below are showing. Before you experiment to have a solution to a puzzle you need to "guess". This guessing has to be an imagination about a context of a problem you are not yet able to explain it plausibly. For sure, a policy is something else: its goal-driven. Goal-directedness is not scientific but engineering. Eysenck describes the political role of science. Richard Feynman describes the scientific task of science. If you discover the new world of the term "posttruth" you may look rather into a world of policies than discussing the scientific value of the content of what "truth" is consisting of. Remember, the 97 percent within the CO²-debate. They are just hot air. These claimed 97 percent are not being allowed to discuss the probability of reality of such claimed projections (CO² claim). If you follow the logic of Richard Feynman this kind of method is everything else but science. It is quite the opposite of what an "Open Society" is supposed to be. Moreover, the logarithmic structure of a decreasing CO² climate sensitivity ( http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=19728#Post19728 ) is not being allowed to enter the realm of consciousness within the common populace. On the base of a theory - as Ulrike Niemeier does it - which includes "models" with a claimed reality which has not been withstood by a scientific experiment you can not make politics as such a theory was at the first place a default by politics through the approval of public money. In other words: politics gave the theory as public policy. David Keith himself admitted that attitudes within the populace are changing only in the long run. So, what do you have to do to change the attitude of the populace to a certain topic? A theory is not a scientific fact. In this context theory is disguised by an image of scientificity. If a theory is a policy this theory can not reach the quality for a responsible - which Niemeier claims for herself - scientific statement on which political decision maker can rely on. It is only a statement based on "models". Niemeier dares to take responsibility on the base of "models"? This kind of handling is a result of politics as a scientific theory is itself a policy. Eysenck had certainly a deep insight into how politics is working. Why else should he has brought this kind of citation at the beginning of his book called "The dynamics of anxiety and hysteria"?
And the curious thing is Ulrike Niemeier herself states: "But the factor of insecurity is huge." (Translated by Denglisch) Also for the scientific point of view. ("'Der Unsicherheitsfaktor ist aber riesig.' Das sagt Ulrike Niemeier, die am 'Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie' forscht. Sie bezieht sich dabei nicht nur auf wissenschaftliche Aspekte." http://www.dw.com/de/geo-engineering-ist-es-eine-gute-idee-das-klima-zu-manipulieren/a-41006377 , Deutsche Welle (German Wave) is the German International public radio) The normal citizen is asking himself: "Why is Niemeier dealing with this kind of research in the first place?" She is even worried about the possibility of war: "My main worry relates to international social conditions. This may bring aggravation, up to war." (Translated by Denglisch) ("Meine Hauptsorge betrifft die internationalen Verhältnisse", sagt Niemeier. "Das kann Ärger geben, bis hin zum Krieg." http://www.dw.com/de/geo-engineering-ist-es-eine-gute-idee-das-klima-zu-manipulieren/a-41006377 ) If you look to her picture below at the first glance you don't suspect an obviously warmongering woman behind Niemeier. Is her political role in this Geoengineering-debate that of capturing males into a view of "Could be worse." like usually fashion models do for advertising new cloth? ( The influence of marriage on the testosterone of males: Mazur, Allan, & Joel Michalek. (1998). “Marriage, divorce, and male testoste-rone.” Social Forces, 77(1),315-330 http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1026534415http://cogprints.org/632/1/Joel.html ) In a marketing context Ulrike Niemeier acts as a sales woman and is playing with the metapher of "war" to calm down any (testosterone) resistance to the possibly "war"(Niemeiers own words)-producing idea of Geoengineering.
This tension between Niemeier and Keith is kind of peculiar as women are usually standing for "life". Obviously, she does not care about the nanosize particles and the plastification of the air getting not only in her blood stream. Her children have obviously a role Peter and Walter had for Helmut Kohl: nice props. Look also to: México, D. F., Invasión de nanopartículares dentro el cuerpo y sus células (Pulmón y cerebro) http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=9074#Post9074
Niemeier has already exact claims how this alleged future geoengineering is supposed to be administered: "Global sulfate injection would demand 6700 flights a day. Possibly for about 160 years. The global community would not be allowed to quit the flights before the year 2200." (Translated by Denglisch) ("Globale Schwefelinjektion würde 6700 Flüge am Tag erfordern, rechnet Ulrike Niemeier vom Max-Planck-Institut für Meteorologie in Hamburg mit einer Kollegin in 'Science' vor. Sie wären womöglich 160 Jahre lang nötig, vor 2200 aufhören dürfte die Weltgemeinschaft nicht." http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/...-fuer-eine-zu-heisse-erde-a-1159027.html , http://science.sciencemag.org/content/357/6348/246.full)
If one is asking oneself what kind of significance the first statement of Ulrike Niemeier ( https://ce-conference.org/person/ulrike-niemeier ) has to the community, one has to look immediately to the "Uncertainties" which is described by the IPPC: http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=19748#Post19748 That way it is possible to imagine the value of "models": it is like the situation before 2008 when economic gurus were juggling with their mathematical models being surprised after the crash that the reality is another one than in the models assumed. They tried to describe reality mathematically. A Black Swann was out of their imagination. Why? The crazy thing about it: most economic scientists who had taught this kind of boloney in economics stayed in their jobs. With this kind of experience in mind it is naturally that those who - like Keith or Niemeier - are juggling with their "models" (again Jeff Koon) in the public don't have to take any risk in reality. That way it is very easy to be "responsible" according the motto: "More risk, more fun." - using the image of physics and chemistry as "exact" sciences compared to the social science of economics. But: climatology is not an exact science.
Below you may study the kind of intense scientific work in Boulder Niemeier did in that location. Strangely - the Boulder travel experiences are written in German despite of having an internet address for the English section at the Max-Planck-Institute in Hamburg.
Interestingly enough is the term "Verantwortung" (Responsibility) which Ulrike Niemeier is taking by being in favor of geoengineering. SHE and the author Claudia Timmreck are taking responsibility for the rest of the world? And David Keith at the same time, too? Without any biological expertise? Or medical expertise? Where is an adequate number of cases planning necessary to assess a medical context in geoengineering? ( https://www.uni-kiel.de/medinfo/leh...lplanung%20in%20klinischen%20Studien.pdf ) Or even an expertise to evaluate the logarithmic decreasing impact of CO² climate sensitivity - which is the legitimization for such planned actions - on the atmosphere? With more pollution? With more plastics to keep the dispersed nano particles in the air? As the topic of "plastic" is suddenly a topic of the European Commission and Greenpeace (which is neglecting the fact of already ongoing Geoengineering). First creating an articial threat bubble (again Jeff Koon) with the name of CO² and then creating their own job. As Pablo Picasso showed his engineering abilities directly in his paintings Jeff Koon is describing the world as a preliminary result of engineering tasks.
Is Ulrike Niemeier or David Keith getting too big for one's britches by taking responsibility for the whole world? And what kind of legal legitimization do Niemeier and Keith have? They are not law makers. But: As we have seen it with Daniel Cohn-Bendit ( http://globalskywatch.com/chemtrails/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=6957#Post6957 ) - their statements have a lot of power. If they build an opinion cartel it is the responsibility of the law makers to reduce their reach to the field which they have real expertise in.
Daniel Cohn-Bendit said in the old version of "Bye, Bye Blue Skies": "Yes, it is always the same kind of questions, again you ask me a scientific question to which I can not answer." And who can answer the scientific question? Why should be a perception a scientific question at all?
As you may see from this role allocation within the polit business the scientists get transferred the responsibility of an "objective" reality to put laws upon. As an experienced polit profi Cohn-Bendit describes how the polit business is working. The problem with that: Politicians are legitimized by the representation of the populace, scientists are not. But Cohn-Bendit behaves himself as other politicians are also behaving: "Science" has to give the final answer in the decision-making process to get rid of "responsiblity". Not the politician has decided, science has decided. This is post-democracy which is easily forgotten in the discussion around "posttruth". Who left the path of truth? The post-democrats or the "truthers"?
If you connect this statement of Daniel Cohn-Bendit with the statement of Ulrike Niemeier it is clear what is going on in politics. Daniel Cohn-Bendit does not have to feel bad about describing this political reality. At least, he was the only one to describe straight away how things are working. And this is a merit only he deserves. I am glad he did it. In face of 30.000 lobbyists and their "Round Tables" in Bruxelles it is clear that the published illusion of power of the parlamentarians has its political function. Also, it is clear now that unelected scientists receive a political ponderosity they don't deserve and they are not legitimized by any political mandate of the populace.
Why is there no experiment on the efficacy of CO² on the climate? There has been even a climate chamber in the year 1943. Why not now with even better technical simulation possibilities?
U. Niemeier and C. Timmreck Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Bundesstr. 53, 20146 Hamburg, Germany Correspondence to: U. Niemeier (ulrike.niemeier@mpimet.mpg.de)
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
"Ulrike Niemeier's main focus is on the simulation of the evolution of stratospheric sulfur and sulfate after volcanic eruptions and injections for climate engineering studies. Her interest is the particle evolution in the stratosphere depending on transport processes, particle size and particle radiation interaction and their impact on stratospheric dynamic. Niemeier works with an aerosol micro-physical model to simulate the aerosol formation and dynamical impacts and with a Earth-system model to simulate the impact of the stratospheric aerosol layer on climate and hydrological cycle, e.g. within GeoMIP." https://ce-conference.org/person/ulrike-niemeier
"GeoMIP was born out of a need to answer the question, 'What are the expected climate effects of geoengineering?' Multiple groups in the past have conducted climate model simulations of geoengineering, but prior to this project, very few of them had done the same experiment, which makes it difficult to determine which features in the results are actually due to geoengineering and which are specific to the model on which the simulation was conducted. GeoMIP serves to organize geoengineering simulations by prescribing the experiments which all participating climate models will perform. (...)" http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/GeoMIP/about.html
