Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
One has to wonder, humans it
One has to wonder, humans it seems are far better at creating problems than fixing, there is that sinking feeling that such geoengineering projects will cause some unforseen problem. Course, if the future turns into one where the world cant get its act together something drastic and risky might be seriously considered.
Bullshit
Ahh, sweet irony...
W. Hall: I'm not sure exactly who or what I'm addressing, but do you not find it ironic that you end a post in which you say "Smog-blog bullshitters who hide behind their index fingers..." with "you people are going to be held to account for your hypocrisy and deceit"? I mean, you're waving your index finger around liberally... I think that one of your other three fingers may be pointing at the fact you open your argument with the word "Bullshit".
No one knows what the hell you're talking about, W Hall. IF you've got a point to make, make it calmly and rationally. Lest you be held to account for your unproductive and self-indulgent hysteria.
Apologies...
My apologies for speaking to soon. I just Googled "Rosalind Peterson". Now I do know who and what I was addressing...
Identification achieved
If nothing, you merely
A hypothesis
Climate engineering should be discussed between those who advocate it, such as Crutzen and Wigley, and those who oppose it and are prepared to entertain the possibility that it might already be in massive application. Those who express hesitations, say that it “might not be wise”, represent it as being something that is acceptable “only as a last resort” but are quite quite sure that it is not already under implementation…..have no place in the discussion.
Just imagine, hypotethically, that a world-wide programme of secret construction of nuclear power stations were under way. Would a discussion between proponents and opponents of nuclear power be of any relevance to anything if it were based on exclusion of those attempting to draw attention to the reality of the hypothesized secret programme?
trolls
Trolls
Talking about it
This is not the first time this subject has been broached at DeSmogBlog. Only a couple of months ago Richard Littlemore acknowledged that I am right about one thing:
“We should be talking about it”
Why, then, are we (not just I) NOT talking about it? And why does the subject have to be started afresh every time, as if DeSmogBlog is run by people suffering from Alzheimer’s?
Correction