Thread by @DKeithClimate

1/13 Johnathan Foley @GlobalEcoGuy says "Solar Geoengineering: Ineffective, Risky, and Unnecessary".

Well, 2 out of 3 ain't bad. But, before we get to which 2, let's consider his arguments. globalecoguy.org/solar-geoengin…

2/13 Foley opens with a common ad hominem attack, claiming that folks who argue for SG research do so because they are "unwilling to accept" that the tools to cut emissions are at hand so they want to "counteract climate change *instead of* addressing its underlying causes"

3/13 This attack works by emphasizing the (false) idea that SG is an alternative to rapid decarbonization. It's goal is to make SG research advocates look like defenders of the status quo or even oil companies dupes.

4/13 It's effective but disingenuous. Can Foley provide evidence that this view is widespread among folks advocating SG research? I doubt it. He knows this is not the view of the National Academy nor of environmental groups like UCS, NRDC, and EDF that support research

5/13 Ad hominem attacks use Cultural Cognition.

If you can convince your audience that folks arguing for X are from the other (bad) tribe...

Then you convince them that X must be a bad idea without needing to offer arguments about X.

Helpful if you argument about X is weak

6/13 For what it's worth I am in total agreement with Foley's statement that "The essential solutions are right in front of us. Our job is to bring them to scale as quickly, safely, and equitably as possible."

7/13 And, I agree with much of his argument that innovation are often overhyped to avoid climate action: globalecoguy.org/occams-razor-f…

8/13 Now turn Foley's claims about SG. He starts by noting that: "Because aerosols reflect solar radiation, they are more effective during the day, during the summer, and in the equatorial zone. In other words: The opposite pattern of greenhouse warming."

9/13 It's an important and true claim. Ken @KenCaldeira and I used this argument >20 years ago to argue against Lowell Wood's claims about how well SG would work.

If there had been no more research Foley would be right draw some plausible conclusions and leave it there.

10/13 But, have been 100's of climate model runs over decades using almost every major model.

The models suggest that SG *could* reduce many of the most important climate hazards with surprising uniformity.

(*could* not *would* -- uncertainty is big)

11/13 Foley cites none of this work. He just leaps from a 20 year old simple physical argument to the claim that "solar geoengineering [is] largely ineffective"

He may be correct.

The evidence from climate models may be wrong

12/13 But this debate needs qualitative science not crude analogies.

It needs ethically grounded debates about political power.

Foley is a smart serious scientist, I hope for more than casual claims about "science-fiction ideas that won’t really work"

13/13 So...
Ineffective--maybe, but that's not how the evidence looks so far

Risky--yes, but sound decisions need careful quantitative comparison of risk to benefits.

Unnecessary--of course! It's just nuts to say we must use geoengineering to save planet.

@threadreaderapp unroll

Read this thread on a single webpage here: threadreaderapp.com/thread/1379066…