Category: Research Paper
Manipulation. The Webster dictionary says “to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage” (Merriam-Webster) So what does this mean in the context of communication. It would appear that to manipulate someone is sinister in nature. That it is something bad or evil we do to other people for our own gain. But is it? Throughout this paper I hope to disprove this fact that manipulation is only used for malicious intent. Or maybe I’ll only help further the notion that to manipulate someone is a bad thing to do.
Throughout this paper I will discuss several different forms of manipulation such as; Crowd Manipulation, Market Manipulation, Media Manipulation, and Psychological Manipulation. I will break down each of these to find their purpose and place in our society and to find if they is any “good” to be found in them. Crowd Manipulation.
Crowd manipulation is a form of soft manipulation. According to Wikipedia the definition is “the intentional use of techniques based on the principles of crowd psychology to engage, control, or influences the desires of a crowd in order to direct its behavior toward a specific action.” (Crowd Manipulation, 2012). This has and is still being used as a powerful tool for people to rally individuals to a cause. This was used during the Revolutionary War to rally the public against the British troops. Adolf Hitler and Winston Churchill also used crowd manipulation to gather more war assets for WWII. The location also has a lot of power when trying to sway a crowd to your position. Such as Ronald Regan giving a speech at the Berlin Wall or George W. Bush speaking at the World Trade Center shortly after September 11th, this can powerful imagery when speaking to crowds. But crowd manipulation is not always for political means. Sports teams often use mascots to help involve the crowd in sporting events, it may be the Michigan State “Spartan” or the University of Georgia.
Please sign up to read full document.YOU MAY ALSO FIND THESE DOCUMENTS HELPFUL
Othello Essay “To what extent is manipulation central to the play as a whole?” Even though the play is called “Othello” and what Othello does is central to the play, Iago is the character that causes the action within the play written by William Shakespeare. Iago is the character who manipulates others to further the action in this play to make it intriguing for the reader or audience. Manipulation is central to this play as a whole because it is what Iago uses to get his revenge and what furthers Othello’s downfall. Iago uses his expert judgement skills to manipulate gullible Roderigo, jealous Othello and he also manipulates the use of language to get his revenge on Othello. Othello is a high general in the service of Venice who promotes Michael Cassio to the position of lieutenant and Iago is jealous of this. Iago begins plotting an evil scheme to get his revenge against Othello. Iago manipulates characters in the play to get Othello to think Desdemona is cuckolding him and Othello becomes jealous and suspicious of her. All this leads to Othello murdering Desdemona and the deaths of Emilia and Roderigo. Othello ends up killing himself after finding out Iago is at fault. Iago uses manipulation to betray Roderigo, Cassio and Othello to benefit himself. Iago is a good judgement of character so he knows that Roderigo is gullible so he uses that to his advantage. When he finds out that Roderigo is in love with Desdemona he.
950 Words | 3 Pages
Manipulation and society To understand and analyse manipulative discourse, it is crucial to first examine its social environment. We have already assumed that one of the characteristics of manipulation . for instance as distinct from persuasion, is that it involves power and domination. An analysis of this power dimension involves an account of the kind of control that some social actors or groups exercise over others (Clegg, 1975; Luke, 1989; Van Dijk, 1989: Wartenberg, 1990). We also have assumed that such control is first of all a control of the mind, that is, of the beliefs of recipients, and indirectly a control of the actions of recipients based on such manipulated beliefs. In order to be able to exercise such social control of others, however, social actors need to satisfy personal and social criteria that enable them to influence others in the first place. In this article, I limit my analysis to social criteria, and ignore the influence of psychological factors, such as character traits, intelligence, learning, etc. In other words, I am not interested here in what might be a ‘manipulating personality’, or in the specific personal way by which people manipulate others. Social conditions of manipulative control hence need to be formulated – at least at the macro level of analysis – in terms of group membership, institutional position, profession, material or symbolic resources and other factors that define the power of groups and their.
1598 Words | 4 Pages
Throughout history, the manipulation of a population has been the key to attaining a person’s personal goals. It is often the action behind all major historic events. During both the Renaissance and the Reformation, manipulation has been a prominent aspect of many of the changes that occurred. John Calvin, a major reformer of the Church, uses manipulation to gain and maintain power over both Geneva and its citizens. He manipulates the citizens by controlling the fear, emotion, knowledge, and finally, the Calvinist religion itself. John Calvin’s use of fear as a tool to control his citizens in Geneva shows his strong skills as a leader in the Renaissance. Whilst in power in Geneva, John Calvin created strict laws and cruel punishments for those who broke these laws (Klimek, 213). Geneva, being a theocracy at the time, had many laws based on religious principles that were not to be broken. Michael Servetus, a citizen of Geneva, disagreed with one of these principles and ended up being sentenced to burn at the stake (Haberman, 36). This action creates fear among Calvin’s citizens which he uses as a way to gain respect. Those who fear punishment will be less likely to break the rules. It also appears that by getting rid of the bad people Calvin is creating a safer more respectable society. This is a tool used to manipulate the citizens and make him look like he is working for the good of his city, rather than himself. Furthermore, he.
1323 Words | 4 Pages
Manipulation in Othello From beginning to end Iago moves the characters of Othello as if they were chessmen. He uses their individual aspirations and passions to motivate them to whatever devious plan he desires. His adroit manipulation of those characters range from convincing Roderigo to serve Cassio another glass of wine, to leading Othello to the conclusion that only by killing Desdemona could he save himself and mankind from her treacherous acts of infidelity. However, in each case Iago doesn’t have to push very hard because his suggested actions either seem harmless resolutions to each characters woe or take advantage of character flaws. In each case, because he does not have to push very hard, he is able to maintain an air of apathy while promoting his ultimate malevolent goals: "I am not what I am"(I, i, 71). In this manner, Iago manipulates Cassio, Desdemona, Emilia, Roderigo, and Othello to play their separate pieces in the puzzle that will ultimately mean Desdemona’s death. Iago takes advantage of both Cassio's yearning for his old position of lieutenant as well as Desdemona’s good-hearted nature in order create the image that Desdemona is being unfaithful with him. Cassio loses his lieutenancy do to his drunkenness and brawl with Roderigo and Montano: "I love thee, but nevermore be lieutenant of mine" (II,iii,264-265). Dejected, Iago turns to Iago, a self-proclaimed, "honest man"(II, iii, 285), who happens to be nearby. Iago has.
1588 Words | 3 Pages
Iago’s Manipulation Exposed in Othello “I have’t. It is engendered. Hell and night / Must bring this monstrous birth to the world’s light.” (1.3 446-47). As Iago indicates, an evil tyrant may lurk in even the best of people, only looking for self-satisfaction and prosperity at whatever costs, exactly how Iago presents himself through Othello. Throughout the play, people are unaware of their surroundings enemies and mischievous plans at work, forgetting the saying, “keep friends close, and enemies even closer.” Iago’s jealously overwhelms him, masterminding a mischievous plan to have Othello kill Desdemona. Shakespeare demonstrates that those who manipulate others, convincing them to act dishonorably, are guiltier than those who actually perform the illicit action. Within the play, Shakespeare develops this idea through the characters, as Iago manipulates Desdemona, Roderigo, Cassio, and Othello. Characters throughout Othello manipulate others to behave in ways they normally would not. Desdemona’s infatuation for Othello, for example, cannot be disregarded, and she must convince the Venetian senate as well as her father for approval of the marriage. In her speech before them, she pleads, “And I a heavy interim shall support / By his dear absence. Let me go with him” (1.3 293-94). Desdemona makes this statement as if she were to be miserable without him, convincing the senate so she can be with Othello. Not only does Desdemona have a way with.
1005 Words | 3 Pages
while balancing their own drama outside the White Collar division. Neal uses his charm, and manipulation skills, so he can go undercover and gather information to help solve cases. He also uses those attributes to get money by pulling cons and stealing different pieces of expensive art for himself. Neal realizes the reason why he continues to be a con man and why he continues to manipulate others. Unlike most scammers, he doesn’t do it for the money, but for the challenge. The con men in White Collar use social deception to manipulate others, with skill, in order to alter their identities and to unfairly control someone’s mind, so they can gain power and feel euphoric. Before analyzing the relationship between con men in White Collar and manipulation . the denotation and connotation of “manipulate” has to be thoroughly clarified. In Oxford Dictionaries, “manipulate,” is first defined as, “to handle, manage, or use, especially with skill, in some process of treatment or performance” (“Manipulate” 1), which directly asserts that this word is used as an aid when applied to a situation, such as a con. This meaning is valid when Neal controls people by using social deception “to handle [a situation]…with skill” (“Manipulate” 1) whenever necessary. Social engineers conform easily into society, and yet, have the ability to “control or influence” (“Manipulate” 2) others without suspicion. Manipulation results in the need to.
2588 Words | 7 Pages
Motivation or manipulation . We all are aware of the fact that motivation is an extremely useful tool leads to the success of an organization. Motivating employees bring higher performances, better results and it is also an easier way to achieve common goal of the firm. That is the reason why leaders have been trying to find the best way to motivate their employees. However, they often mistake manipulating as motivation because the borderline between those two leadership strategies are very unclear and not so visible. Some leaders believe they are motivating their employees without realizing that they actually manipulate them. The word “manipulation ” has somewhat negative connotation. Some manipulative acts can be considered as something bad but is it always bad? – That’s still a dilemma for most of the leaders nowadays. The word “motivation” is often confused with “manipulation ”. Motivation “is genuinely seeking out the wants, needs and desires of the other party, and then working with the other party to find so solutions that meet your needs – and theirs”; for example, motivated employees do the work assigned to them more efficiently because they feel the responsibility and interested in the work itself. On the other hand, manipulation “is thinking of a reason others will want to do something, and then convincing them your correctness”, persuading them to do work for your benefit, for instance, when you tell.
1358 Words | 4 Pages
Jordan Ferris "While photographs may not lie, liars may photograph". This line, stated by Lewis Hine, a famous photographer from the late 19th to mid 20th century, is starting to become a phrase that really has some meaning (McClymer, 2011). It was once thought that a photograph told the complete truth. However, in more recent times with the technology of the camera, photographers now have the option to not only stage pictures, but to also go back and retouch them once they are already taken. These two forms of photo manipulation are causing a serious ethical dilemma in the photojournalism world. “Migrant Mother”, a photograph of down and out mom Florence Thompson, taken by photographer Dorothea Lange, is a captivating photo, that at first glance has a major impact on viewers, but looking deeper into it, we can see prominent forms of manipulation going on. Staging a photograph is the act of setting up a scene in order to create a certain essence to the picture. While photojournalists should take pictures unplanned, many are starting to take staged photographs, and it is becoming a serious ethical dilemma. As viewers of photojournalists’ work, we want to see the truth. We want to see real life accounts of what is going on in the world. Pictures are supposed to be worth a thousand words, but if photographs continue to be staged as they are being staged now, we will need words to accurately know what is going on. Dorothea Lange’s photograph.
1157 Words | 3 Pages
Is Haarp Manipulating weather?
If you would like to blog about subjects like weather manipulation and eventually get paid to do so...CLICK HERE NOW
The following video shows how it is using actual scientific experiments(showing possible weather manipulation ) copying what HAARP is doing using E.L.F. that in lab experiments showed moisture in clouds being manipulated and potentially enfluencing jet streams My question; How did the ‘SUPER STORM” Hit at just the right time. Some might say that weather manipulation is upsurd. But watch the following videos with an open mind and see if you might just wonder after watching them. There is no proof that these are being used as a weather weapon but there are many corresponding Parallels.(weather manipulation)
If you would like to blog about subjects like weather manipulation and eventually get paid to do so...CLICK HERE NOWThe following talks more on weather manipulation and the Hurrican Sandy from researchers that have studied the subject for the past two years:
This is from them:
2 years worth of study, and documentation…..Finally culminating in the proof needed to show anyone. that indeed our weather professionals are KNOWINGLY pulsing storms with high frequency from ground based stations (such as NEXRAD RADAR stations), to have an effect on the weather.
High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program site
If you would like to blog about subjects like weather manipulation and eventually get paid to do so...CLICK HERE NOW
The following is a meteorologist that explains exactly how they (HAARP) is accomplishing weather manipulation. Actual technologies identified,studied and explained.
Do you like Blog about weather manipulation or related subjects? How would you like to make money doing it?
Watch the testimonial of the Engineer that now makes thousands per month blogging using this incredible system…..WATCH NOW BELOWWeather Manipulation:Sites with information and more links
Is there such thing as weather manipulation(maybe) but before you decide not check out a few sites below and the links that go with them. Some of the information might be fringe but what of the ones that are not.
Weather manipulation:Concluding statements
I hope that what HAARP is saying that it is just studying the weather is just what it is doing. But I have some questions;the timing of Hurrican Sandy,Irene,increased tsunami’s.droughts (etc)
BEFORE YOU LEAVE THIS ARTICLE WEATHER MANIPULATION
Thanks for stopping by today! Are you a blogger, business owner, online entrepreneur, or stay at home parent or caregiver that simply likes the thought of being able to make a significant income from a simple low tech blog that the search engines LOVE (like this one you are on right now)?
If YES or just curious…….be sure to click on the video at the very top of this page or side bar of this page. or, I’ll just make it easy for you and you can
Step one: CLICK HERE. it will open up in new page.
Step two:put your email in the form that you are going to see after you have clicked this link.
Step three:is to click the submit button and watch the video that pops up next. And We’ll meet you on that page.
See how I (and 60k+ other people world wide) have made the Empower Network viral blogging system our preferred blog to share info with people like you….and get paid significantly for it. (Can you imagine making $12k+ per month with a blog. BELIEVE IT. )
It works…..I mean, you are here now right? Click here to check it out!
John and Ana Wilson
I Don’t bite!
recently-unearthed U.S. Navy research project calls for creating mad-made floods and droughts to "disrupt [the] economy" of an enemy state.
"Weather modification was used successfully in Viet Nam [1 ] to (among other things) hinder and impede the movement of personnel and material from North Viet Nam to South Viet Nam," notes a Naval Air Warfare Weapons Division - China Lake research proposal. [2 ] released last month through the Freedom of Information Act. But "since that time military research on Weather Modification has dwindled in the United States."
The proposal suggests a study of the latest weather manipulation techniques, to "give the U.S. military a viable, state-of-the-art weather modification capability again." With that in hand, American forces would be able.
(1) To impede or deny the movement of personnel and material because of rains-floods, snow-blizzards, etc.
(2) To disrupt economy due to the effect of floods, droughts, etc.
The proposal is undated. But it's pretty clearly from the Cold War. Not only is "the Soviet Union (Russia)" mentioned. The money is also relatively small, by today's standards -- less than a half-million dollars, over two years.
A military in-house newspaper calls "weather modification" an "area of China Lake preeminence.
Between 1949 and 1978, China Lake developed concepts, techniques, and hardware that were successfully used in hurricane abatement, fog control, and drought relief. Military application of this technology was demonstrated in 1966 when Project Popeye was conducted to enhance rainfall to help interdict traffic on the Ho Chi Minh Trail." (Here's a picture of China Lake's "Cold Cloud Modification System ."
In 1980, the United States ratified a treaty banning military weather manipulation. But every once in a while, someone in the armed forces floats the idea of doing it again. "Our vision is that by 2025 the military could influence the weather on a mesoscale [theater-wide] or microscale [immediate local area] to achieve operational capabilities," a 1996 Air Force-commissioned study reads.
Today, Chinese officials are trying to figure out ways to keep it from raining over Beiing. during this summer's Olympics.
Endnotes by Wes Penre:
Wes Penre is a researcher, journalist, and the owner of the domains Illuminati News and Zionist Watch and is the publisher of the same. He has been researching Globalization and the New World Order and exposed the big players behind the scenes for more than a decade now. He has published his research on the Internet at the above domains, which are currently updated to keep people informed what is going on. He has also done spiritual research to present a solution to the problems of this world. Also check out his MySpace website: http://www.myspace.com/wespenre.
This page may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.
Design downloaded from FreeWebTemplates.com
Free web design, web templates, web layouts, and website resources!
Wednesday 4 November 2009 00.05 GMT First published on Wednesday 4 November 2009 00.05 GMT
T he unseasonal snow that fell on Beijing for 11 hours on Sunday was the earliest and heaviest there has been for years. It was also, China claims, man-made. By the end of last month, farmland in the already dry north of China was suffering badly due to drought. So on Saturday night China's meteorologists fired 186 explosive rockets loaded with chemicals to "seed" clouds and encourage snow to fall. "We won't miss any opportunity of artificial precipitation since Beijing is suffering from a lingering drought," Zhang Qiang, head of the Beijing Weather Modification Office, told state media.
The US has tinkered with such cloud seeding to increase water flow from the Sierra Nevada mountains in California since the 1950s, but there remains widespread scientific sniffiness in the west at such attempts at weather control. The chemicals fired into the sky, usually dry ice or silver iodide, are supposed to provide a surface for water vapour to form liquid rain. But there is little evidence that it works – after all, how do investigating scientists know it would not have rained anyway?
Such doubts have not stopped China claiming mastery over the clouds. Officials said the blue skies that brightened Beijing's parade to celebrate 60 years of communism last month were a result of the 18 cloud-seeding jets and 432 explosive rockets scrambled to empty the sky of rain beforehand. Last year, more than 1,000 rockets were fired to ensure a dry night for last year's Olympic opening ceremony.
"Only a handful of countries in the world could organise such large-scale, magic-like weather modification," Cui Lianqing, a senior meteorologist with the Chinese air force, told the Xinhua news agency after last month's parade.
Magic or not, there is growing interest in such attempts to deliberately steer the weather, and on a much larger scale. Next spring, a group of the world's leading experts on climate change will gather in California to plan how it could be done as a way to tackle global warming, and by whom. The ideas, some of which, similar to cloud-seeding, involve firing massive amounts of chemicals into the atmosphere, can sound far-fetched, but they are racing up the agenda as pessimism grows about the likely course of global warming.
As interest grows, so does concern about whether such techniques, known as geoengineering, could be developed and unleashed by a single nation, or even a wealthy individual, without wide international approval. "What will happen when Richard Branson decides he really does want to save the planet?" asks one climate expert. If China thinks it can make cloud seeding work, then what about geoengineering?
"If climate change turns ugly, then many countries will start looking at desperate measures," says David Victor, an energy policy expert at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "Logic points to a big risk of unilateral geoengineering. Unlike controlling emissions, which requires collective action, most highly capable nations could deploy geoengineering systems on their own."
Victor is a heavyweight policy analyst, but one of his most impressive academic feats could have been to smuggle the name of the world's favourite secret agent into the sober pages of the Oxford Review of Economic Policy. "Geoengineering may not require any collective international effort to have an impact on climate," he wrote in an article published last year. "A lone Greenfinger, self-appointed protector of the planet and working with a small fraction of the [Bill] Gates bank account, could force a lot of geoengineering on his own. Bond films of the future might [enjoy incorporating] the dilemma of unilateral planetary engineering." Move over, Goldfinger.
Unilateral geoengineering worries experts for two reasons. First, the massive side effects; what it could do to the world's rainfall, for example. Second, once started, geoengineering would probably have to be continued, as stopping could bring an abrupt change in climate. "One of the many dangers with unilateral geoengineering is that once a country starts, it becomes very hard to stop," Victor says. "Removing a warming mask, even if it is a flawed mask, would expose the planet to even more rapid and probably dangerous warming."
In a world where action on global warming has created new markets in carbon worth billions of pounds, countries are not the only players. Geoengineering would require investment and the private sector is already eyeing up opportunities. Two companies have emerged with a business plan based on dumping iron in the sea and then selling carbon offsets based on the extra pollution supposedly soaked up by the resulting algal bloom. And in their new book, Superfreakonomics, Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner talk approvingly of Nathan Myhrvold, the former chief technology officer of Microsoft, whose company, Intellectual Ventures, is exploring the possibility of pumping large quantities of reflective sulphur dust into the Earth's stratosphere through a patented 18-mile-long hose held up by helium balloons.
This is the point where most people will shake their heads, say the whole silly idea will never happen, and skip to the crossword. They could be right, but the global warming story has a tendency to outpace most attempts to predict its path. Just a few years ago, scientists and politicians talked of the need to avoid a 2C rise in global temperature, yet experts recently gathered at an Oxford University conference openly talked of a likely 4C rise, which, without urgent and unlikely action, a new report from the Met Office says could come within many of our lifetimes.
A decade ago, an unproven idea called carbon sequestration. that would see carbon emissions from power stations trapped under the ground, was talked up by a small group of advocates, but was dismissed by most people as too expensive and unworkable on a large scale. Renamed carbon capture and storage, the idea is now mainstream energy policy in countries including Britain, despite still being unproven and dismissed by many as too expensive and unworkable on a large scale. Last month, the International Energy Agency said the world should build 100 full-scale carbon-capture power stations by 2020, and 850 by 2030.
If the geoengineering narrative follows a similar arc, then how long until nations or individuals that have the most to lose, or are the first to accept that the required massive emission cuts are impossible, turn to the presently unthinkable option? The US government, under President Bush, has already lobbied the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to promote geoengineering research as "insurance". When the Royal Society recently carried out an investigation of the options. senior figures privately expected it to dismiss the whole concept as nonsense. Instead the society, Britain's premier scientific academy, concluded in September that methods to block out the sun "may provide a potentially useful short-term backup to mitigation in case rapid reductions in global temperature are needed". The society stressed that emissions reductions were the way to go, but recommended international research and development of the "more promising" geoengineering techniques.
"My guess is that we will be taking geoengineering a lot more seriously in the next decade," says Victor, "but we won't be in a position to deploy systems for some time. Most nations will decide it is needed only if we have really bad luck as warming unfolds and if we fail miserably in controlling emissions. I put the odds of using such systems in the next 40 years at perhaps one in five."
Of all the apparent obstacles to geoengineering, cost is not likely to be among them. Compared with the expense of investing in renewable energy and phasing out fossil fuels, the cheapest geoengineering options come with a price tag of just a few billion pounds, perhaps 1% of what it could cost to tackle global warming through emissions cuts.
Alan Robock, an expert on volcanos and climate at Rutgers University in New Jersey, has looked at how much it might cost to carry out one of the most commonly discussed geoengineering options, to mimic the cooling effect of a volcanic eruption by filling the high atmosphere with sulphur compounds, which reflect sunlight.
The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 threw so much shiny sulphurous dust into the atmosphere that temperatures across a shaded Earth dropped a year later by about 0.5C. The 1815 explosion of Mount Tambora in Indonesia triggered the notorious "year without a summer" and widespread failure of harvests across northern regions including Europe, the north-east US and Canada.
Robock has worked out the likely cost of technology needed to deposit a million tonnes of sulphur in the stratosphere each year, an amount equivalent to a Mount Pinatubo eruption every four to eight years, and which scientists think could be enough to cancel out the global warming caused by a continued rise in carbon emissions.
The cheapest option could be to use giant mid-air refuelling aircraft, such as the US air force's KC-10 Extender, filled with sulphur dioxide or hydrogen sulphide gas. It would be a round-the-clock operation, with nine aircraft each required to fly three sorties a day. In a new paper in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, Robock and his colleagues say it could be done for "several billion" dollars a year. The results have forced Robock to revise a high-profile list of 20 objections to geoengineering he published last year. "It turns out that being way too expensive is not the case."
Robock's new analysis still includes 17 reasons why geoengineering is a bad idea. Throwing sulphur into the atmosphere could slow down the world's water cycle and do more damage to rainfall patterns than the global warming it aims to prevent. And because techniques that focus on stopping sunlight do nothing to stop carbon dioxide pollution from cars, factories and power stations, they cannot address the looming disaster of ocean acidification. The surface of the world's ocean is slowly turning to acid as our extra carbon pollution dissolves in seawater. Coral reefs already appear doomed and many shellfish could follow. Altering the atmosphere could also weaken solar power and reverse years of work to close the hole in the ozone layer.
With such a catalogue of potential disasters waiting to unfold, there must be a law against geoengineering? The international rulebook is fuzzy on this issue. The only international framework that directly covers many geoengineering techniques, the 1976 Environmental Modification Convention, designed to stop nations at war from meddling with each other's weather, has never been tested. The 1982 UN Law of the Sea Convention and the 1967 Outer Space Treaty could be used to regulate activities and experiments in those shared spaces, but releases to the atmosphere are legally more problematic because nations have sovereignty over their own airspace.
Rather than laws and treaties, many experts argue that the best way to prevent countries or companies from going it alone is to plunge in and start serious research. "The way to tame the worst forms of unilateral geoengineering is to promote a lot more research, especially [into] the side effects," Victor says. "One of the biggest dangers is that some governments will try to create a taboo against geoengineering. A taboo would stop a lot of research but it wouldn't stop determined rogues. That scenario would probably be the worst, because rogues would not abandon their efforts and the rest of us would not have done enough research to know what to expect."
Mike MacCracken, chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington, is organising the California meeting next spring, which aims to figure out some guidelines. He says large-scale unilateral geoengineering is "not very plausible" and his main concern is fairness to future generations. Once started by anybody, a geoengineering attempt would probably need to be continued by everybody else because it would offer a mask on global warming that could be dangerous to remove.
"It might be that this is how unilateral concerns should be reframed; this generation more or less deciding it will take only slow action on any type of emissions, essentially forcing the next generation to be more likely to have to invoke geoengineering to save much that anyone considers beneficial and unique about the Earth."
Read between the lines of most scientific reports on geoengineering and there is a tacit assumption that the idea sounds so extreme that merely discussing it will refocus efforts on emission cuts. But what if the reverse is true? What if a heavily funded research programme, and articles such as this, promote the idea to people who have little interest in moving to a low-carbon world?
"Knowledge is hard to hide," says Robock. "It would be great if people didn't know how to build nuclear bombs, but they do. We need to research and debate the consequences and then use politics and influence to let people know what would happen."