Hello and welcome. Based on the Climate Engineering Argument Map, this movie introduces the Arguments Pro Research into Climate Engineering Methods. There are different ways to justify R&D inter-CE methods, that is, thesis T1, some of which are visualized in the Argument Map. We have already encountered in the general introduction of the Argument Map the central justification of R&D. This justification claims that R&D into a climate engineering is required so as to have these methods ready in time. Thus, it is an instrumental justification. R&D is justified as being a suitable means for reaching a specific end. As a means end argument, the central justification relies on several premises. Obviously, it has to assume that it is desirable to have these methods ready for deployment in the very first place. It has to assume that R&D is a suitable means for making CE methods ready for deployment. It has to assume that there are no other alternative means which are equally suitable as immediate R&D, such as for example starting R&D in two decades. And finally, the central justification has to assume that R&D, understood as a means to make CE ready for deployment, has no negative side effects that outweigh its intended purpose. If one accepts these premises, one has to accept the R&D obligation too. If however, one doesn't agree with all assumptions of the central justification, this does not mean that one has to give up the R&D obligation. That's because there might be other justification of CE research. Some such alternative R&D justifications are shown in the argument map. Like the central justification, they all represent means and arguments. They have a central justification cited making CE ready as the key purpose of R&D, the alternative justification set for different aims of research. According to A81, CE research seeks to prevent premature deployment by identifying shortcomings of CE proposals. Likewise, A83 argues that R&D into climate engineering helps to foster mitigation by showing that CE is no viable alternative to emission reduction. Moreover, A87 claims that R&D is a suitable means for preparing an informed decision on CE deployment, which has eventually to be taken. And finally, A85 sees a need for preliminary R&D in order to set up a long-term research agenda for climate engineering. All these alternative justifications are not compelled to assume that having CE ready for deployment is desirable. Unlike the central justification of R&D, they bypass the most controversial sub-debat of the controversy. But these alternative justifications, too, have to assume that the side effects of R&D are negligible relative to the intended purpose and that there are no more suitable means other than R&D for reaching the intended goal. These assumptions are not visualized in the argument map, but they should be kept in mind when evaluating the controversy. Thank you very much for your attention.