Richard Littlemore | March 19, 2007 By Richard Littlemore • Monday, March 19, 2007 - 08:18 Tweet MAIL PRINT This CNN story lays out some of the optionsfor climate engineering, also called “playing with fire.” Click here for reuse options! Tweet EMAIL PRINT SUBSCRIBE Richard Littlemore's blog ‹ PREVIOUSIPCC Plants Seeds of DoubtNEXT ›Don’t “cry wolf” on climate-change risks, scientists say View the discussion thread. Comments Carl Szczerski replied on Mon, 2007-03-19 15:48 Permalink 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. W. Hall replied on Mon, 2007-03-19 23:11 Permalink Bullshit Advocates of geoengineering such as Crutzen and Wigley have to be brought into public dialogue with opponents (such as e.g. Rosalind Peterson) who are telling the truth, i.e. that these “last resort” “solutions” are already in massive application. Smog-blog bullshitters who hide behind their index finger in relation to this fact are objective allies not only of the geoengineers but even worse of the climate change contrarians who preserve the political balance that the geoengineers say “forces” them to propose (and implement) such “solutions”. You people are going to be held to account for your hypocrisy and deceit. DEW replied on Tue, 2007-03-20 05:45 Permalink 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. DEW replied on Tue, 2007-03-20 05:51 Permalink Apologies... My apologies for speaking to soon. I just Googled “Rosalind Peterson”. Now I do know who and what I was addressing… W. Hall replied on Tue, 2007-03-20 20:05 Permalink Identification achieved So now that you know who you are addressing what do you have to say in response? W. Hall replied on Tue, 2007-03-20 21:09 Permalink If nothing, you merely If nothing, you merely confirm the point I was making. W. Hall replied on Thu, 2007-03-22 01:47 Permalink 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? Anonymous replied on Thu, 2007-03-22 07:44 Permalink trolls Debating trolls goes nowhere. W. Hall replied on Thu, 2007-03-22 20:40 Permalink Trolls If the meaning of that remark is that you think I am a troll, ask yourself the question of how much your own beliefs may be attributed not only to “international community”, and thus international media, policy but also to the activity of REAL trolls, sometimes extremely aggressive and well-informed, at the forums where geoengineering and weather modification issues are discussed. W. Hall replied on Thu, 2007-03-22 21:01 Permalink 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? W. Hall replied on Fri, 2007-03-23 03:11 Permalink Correction The above link should be to this.