At the bottom there are also some of the reactions from printed media sources and the blogosphere.
Although I had a few questions I would had liked to ask, I thought the most important for me, at the moment, was weather or not these reports were going to be available in Spanish.
The overarching themes of the conference, and the debate in general are the scientific, ethical and security concerns part of which is the need to provide basic up to date scientific knowledge to inform not only the scientific and policy communities, but the public debate as well, which must include the global community and not only a particular State or set of States; and this global community should not be taken to be only NGOs and Civil Society groups. These groups have a very important role, but act as second or third party information re-layers, but mostly 'interpreters'. Which means that by the time the information reaches the public at large, it has been already influenced and changed by the particular views of these actors, those being political, environmental, commercial, etc. Think of that old childhood game 'telephone', where a particular set of instructions or information is given only to the first person in a long line of participants. Each person upon receiving the information is to relay it quietly to the next, 'without changing it' or 'as close as possible'. If you haven't played, the usual result is that the last person receives a message that has been substantially changed, or is often missing or has been added non related information. Even here on this blog we are not exempt from those dynamics!
For that reason making these reports available in an unadulterated form in other languages may also be important for climate justice, human rights and very importantly for the security concerns of the producing State.
So that is why I think that these two reports should be available from the producers in at least some of the other major languages, i.e. Spanish, etc.
Twitts regarding Ralph J. Cicerone's comments:
"Cicerone: message of NAS has been clear-most effective, least risky way to address climate change? reduce GHG emissions
"But planet is not on a clear path to reduce emissions," says Cicerone
"Cicerone: scientific community needs to have answers regarding consequences of ever deploying
"Every year of inaction requires technological demands
Twitts regarding Marcia McNut K. the committee's president:
"NAS/NRC not only separating
"SRM has unknown risk, and known substantial risks, but could be effective and quick.
"NAS McNutt: OIF "more risky" than other sink enhancement
"NAS recommendation #2: R&D to improve CDR at scales that matter.
"NAS rec #5: US should improve capacity to detect/measure radiative forcing, and associated changes in climate.
"NAS governance: transparent, inclusive conversations. max benefits of research, designed to minimize future risks.
"NAS call for open, transparent governance for SRM research, involving civil society
Twitts related to Q & A:
#climateintervention: Governance seems to focus only on US side. How do we get all the global stakeholders involved?"
"Abdalati: goal is to weigh "risks of intervening vs the risks of not intervening"
"Waleed Abdalati: Mitigation and adaptation should be the goal, then to understand risks of intervening
#Science must be at the table along with legal, political, ethical parties says @dwtitley @NASciences #climateintervention"
"Q: legal/social issues - committee makeup primarily scientific, report recs initiating broader societal discussion
"NAS emphasise risks of 'lock-in' of SRM because of termination effect
"Distinct governance concerns for CDR and albedo modification, mostly bc of scale (OIF an exception).
'"Counter-intuitive effects of
#albedo mod in the #Arctic...may actually lead to warmer conditions." @dwtitley #climateintervention'
#climateintervention in case some lone nation geoengineers so we can say "what does this mean" - @dwtitley"
Some print and blogosphere reactions:
Climate geoengineering schemes come under fire Influential US group lays out which planet-cooling proposals may work — and which won't.
Alexandra Witze 10 February 2015 (nature)
Don’t Block the Sun to Cope with Global Warming
By David Biello | February 10, 2015 (Scientific American)
Geoengineering Holds Promise; Solutions Not Ready
By Brian Kahn Published: February 10th, 2015 (Climate Central)
Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth: The NAS Weighs Controversial Measures in New Report
By Peter Frumhoff, director of science & policy February 10, 2015 (Union of Concerned Scientists)
Panel Urges More Research on Geoengineering as a Tool Against Climate Change
By HENRY FOUNTAIN FEB. 10, 2015 (NY Times)
Fed report: Time to examine purposely cooling planet idea
By SETH BORENSTEIN Feb. 10, 2015 (AP)
Scientists urge global 'wake-up call' to deal with climate change
Suzanne Goldenberg Feb. 10, 2015 (UK - The Guardian)
Geoengineering: Research is Prudent, But No Substitute for Carbon Pollution Cuts
Feb 10, 2015 (NRDC)
Plan B? What Happened to Plan A? by Pat Mooney (ETC via Common Dreams)
Rethinking the unthinkable by Jack Stilgoe Feb 10, 2015 (UK - The Guardian)
Advent of geoengineering may help lower temperature of debate over climate change
Feb 10, 2015 by Phys.Org
In Geoengineering Study, Science Academy Sees Merit in CO2 Removal, Risk in Reflecting Sunlight
By Andrew C. Revkin February 10, 2015 (NY Times)
Geoengineering and the folly of playing God with the plane
By Jason Samenow February 10, 2015 (The Washington Post)
Climate Hacking Is Barking Mad
By Raymond T. Pierrehumbert Feb. 10, 2015 (Slate)
geoengineering: the bad idea we need to stop climate change
by Eric Roston February 10, 2015 (Bloomberg)
Scientists Are Pretty Terrified About These Last-Minute Fixes to Global Warming
By Tim McDonnell | Tue Feb. 10, 2015 (Mother Jones)
There’s a Good and a Bad Way to ‘Geoengineer’ the Planet
Craig Welch Published February 10, 2015 (National Geographic)
Anti-‘Geoengineering’ National Academy Report Opposes ‘Climate-Altering Deployment’
By Joe Romm Posted on February 10, 2015 (Climate Progress)
Media coverage of NAS “Climate Intervention” reports
February 10, 2015 / dcgeoconsortium
Civil Society statements on release of NAS “Climate Intervention” reports
February 10, 2015 / dcgeoconsortium
Scientists Suggest Testing Climate Engineering
A report from the National Academy of Sciences says inaction on greenhouse-gas emissions makes resorting to geoengineering more likely
By Kevin Bullis on February 10, 2015 (MIT Tech Review)
U.S. should fund climate engineering research, report concludes
By Eli Kintisch 10 February 2015 (Science AAAS)