Guardian reports on the Nature article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/17/scientists-criticise-project-geoengineer-climate 

Slightly unfairly framed (of course!), but I am grateful that I (unlike the Nature article) was accurately represented. Thanks also for Camila Ruz (the author), for getting the figure caption changed from this

'The project will inject particles into the atmosphere to reflect some of the sun's energy.'

to this


The project will test the feasibility of injecting particles into the atmosphere to reflect some of the sun's energy.

Here's the bit I am quoted in - I've added corrections to clarify (as if I'd had some editorial control)...

The principal investigator on the project, Matthew Watson, denied that the decision to postpone it was a direct result of the outcry from green groups: "I'm glad the environmental movement have a strong voice," he said, "but the decision was made before any of the really deep green movement got involved the letter from the deep green ENGOs was received" A review of the project two months earlier had concluded that without more public engagement it could not go ahead. The stagegate review, in mid-June, concluded that preparations for the balloon experiment could continue whilst further work was undertaken to engage with a broader range of stakeholders. The final decision to postpone was designed to give the SPICE researchers further time to complete that effort and to reflect on the outcome(s).

Now the first test of the technology will be put on hold until a second review meeting approves the stakeholder engagement the researchers have done in the intervening time. "We've developed a plan and begun initial discussions with these NGOs so we can get round a table and talk," said Watson.

The controversy surrounding the project is unlikely to fade away. "I think it's a lightning rod for people who don't think it's a good idea and naturally even believe in researching climate engineering options and, who, unfairly, think the scientists involved want to see this through to deployment and - that really isn't the case at all," said Watson. He is not an enthusiast for climate geoengineering as a policy option and firmly believes that cutting greenhouse gas emissions should be the top priority.

{My position is a little more nuanced than that, of course - see 'Sceptical Realist' on this blog for my current personal framing on SRM vs CRD - but I am happy with that description on a fundamental level. Of course, in the absence of evidence-based research the only sensible, objective (i.e. professional as opposed to personal) position is agnosticism}.

"If the politicians came back from [international climate talks in] Durban with a legally binding agreement on CO₂ emission reduction of some meaning … that would make research projects like Spice much less important relevant," said Watson. "But each time they don't, when they think of political rather than geological climatological {I am fairly sure I said 'climatological'} timescales and they think about being re-elected or putting the economy first at any cost then that just makes research into climate geoengineering even more necessary."