Hello and welcome. This movie is going to introduce the argument map on climate engineering. It's going to explain the purpose of the argument map, highlights and caveats and present the key issues addressed in the map. The purpose of the argument map is simply to provide a neutral overview of the controversy and to structure the further debate. It should be noted that the argument map is but a snapshot of an evolving and ongoing controversy. Moreover, the map is not prescriptive. It doesn't try to resolve the controversy. It doesn't tell you what you ought to believe about the key questions of the debate. The argument map is, in addition, based on an interpretation and there might be other equally viable interpretations that draw quite different picture of the debate. And finally, the argument map doesn't distinguish between different climate engineering methods. This means that not all arguments included in the argument map apply equally to all the different climate engineering proposals. So, our argument map addresses two key issues. Firstly, should we deploy climate engineering methods? And secondly, should we carry out R&D, that is, research and development into these methods? The deployment question is discussed in the upper part of the argument map, whereas the R&D issue is considered by arguments in the lower part. Each of these parts contains at least one central claim. The central claim in the lower part of the debate, which is the part that concerns R&D, is the thesis T1 R&D obligation. It says R&D into climate engineering technologies ought to be carried out immediately. Note that the green arrows indicate support relations between these arguments, and that the red arrows indicate attack relations. A support relation holds if the conclusion of the supporting argument is identical with the premise of the supported argument, an attack relation holds if the conclusion of the attacking argument negates a premise of the attack argument. Claim T1 R&D obligation is backed up by a central justification of R&D, which is shown here. Argument A1, making climate engineering technologies ready, states that R&D is required, so as to have climate engineering ready in time. Note that these field boxes represent arguments, whereas the white boxes represent theses. These are four theses which support argument A1, meaning that these theses represent premises argument 1 relies on. Each of these four claims give rise to a more or less extensive sub-debate of the controversy, and that's why we may think of the central R&D justification as a way to structure the entire debate. Now, claim T2 gives rise to the most extensive sub-debate, namely the controversy about whether we should deploy climate engineering methods, and that sub-controversy is visualised in the upper part of the argument map. So it's through claim T2 and through the central justification of R&D that the lower part and the upper part of the argument map are connected. Thus, roughly speaking, we have in our argument map arguments pro R&D, which include the central justification of R&D, we have arguments contra R&D, there are arguments pro deployment, as well as arguments contra deployment, and finally at the very top of the argument map, we have arguments which concern cross-cutting issues, which are of relevance for very different reasons throughout the entire debate. If you are interested in any of these specific lines of reasoning, you are invited to have a look at our other movies, which introduce these parts of the debate in more detail. Thank you very much for your attention.