{"id":1768,"date":"2009-09-04T09:03:57","date_gmt":"2009-09-04T13:03:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/?p=1768"},"modified":"2009-09-04T09:03:57","modified_gmt":"2009-09-04T13:03:57","slug":"the-royal-societys-geoengineering-report","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/2009\/09\/04\/the-royal-societys-geoengineering-report\/","title":{"rendered":"The Royal Society&#8217;s geoengineering report"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><span style=\"color: #000000\">Here\u2019s another one of those examples where the link between scientists and the public can break down, leading to conflicting or erroneous reports.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000\">As reported by the <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/news\/thegreatbeyond\/2009\/09\/geoengineering_does_the_rounds.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Nature blog The Great Beyond<\/a>, when the <a href=\"http:\/\/royalsociety.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Royal Society<\/a> released a <a href=\"http:\/\/royalsociety.org\/displaypagedoc.asp?id=35120\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">report on climate geoengineering<\/a> earlier this week, reporters were scratching their heads about the take-home message from the report.\u00a0 The British coverage was across the map, ranging from <a href=\"http:\/\/www.theregister.co.uk\/2009\/09\/02\/cox_and_jeffery_geoengineering_call\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Boffins: Give up on CO<sub>2<\/sub> cuts, only geoengineering can work<\/a> (The Register) to <a href=\"http:\/\/www.ft.com\/cms\/s\/0\/27bee352-9758-11de-83c5-00144feabdc0.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">Hopes dashed for geo-engineering solutions<\/a><\/span> (The Financial Times).<\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000\">The bottom line of the report is really nothing new: we should do everything possible to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but we should also know the consequences of geoengineering schemes as a last resort.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000\">These differing views raise the question: Is it useful when a scientific body goes on record as saying something middle-of-the-road? If it\u2019s not advancing the science, is it just going to confuse people?<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000\">Read Nature\u2019s coverage of the report <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nature.com\/news\/2009\/090901\/full\/461019a.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">here<\/a>. Also read about a recent paper by Ken Caldeira, a coauthor on the report, <a href=\"..\/..\/..\/..\/..\/?p=1342\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\">here<\/a>.<br>\n<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Here\u2019s another one of those examples where the link between scientists and the public can break down, leading to conflicting or erroneous reports. As reported by the Nature blog The Great Beyond, when the Royal Society released a report on climate geoengineering earlier this week, reporters were scratching their heads about the take-home message from the report.\u00a0 The British coverage&#8230;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":50,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[10,88,48],"tags":[274,123,332],"class_list":["post-1768","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-ecology-in-policy","category-science-journalism","category-ecology-and-society","tag-geoengineering","tag-science-journalism","tag-the-royal-society-of-london"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1768","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/50"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1768"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1768\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1768"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1768"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1768"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}