Are geoengineering deniers acting immorally?

page: 9
30
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jdub297
 


If we feared, or refrained from doing what we KNOW is dangerous, where would we be?

The words 'human' and 'normal' come to mind.
Don't most intelligent animals with common sense refrain from doing what they know is dangerous?
(Ex. A bobcat isn't going to leap off of a 50ft cliff)
edit on 18-4-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-4-2012 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 19 2012 @ 04:49 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 



I do see a lot of narrow Mindedness here and anti-science.


Agreed. The entire premise is Neo-Luddite.


Strange, those taliking about geoengineering and it's dangers are the ones searching out, reading, and posting the science. Like in my OP.


Unfortunately, when they do post external sources they censor, distort, edit and misrepresent them. They fail to understand important distinctions, like the difference between a "proposal"and an "implemented program.""



I've yet to see your side refute all the science I posted saying geoengineering is dangerous... God-like pronouncements aside...


Fighting forest fires interferes with Nature, and directly affects climate. By your loose standards, it is geo-emgineering. Is fighting forest fires immoral?



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I don't believe they are acting immorally, they've just fallen hook,line and sinker for the propaganda..."It's just contrails guys"

reply to post by pianopraze
 



posted on Apr, 23 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Rubinstein
 


Still waiting for any credible, let alone verifiable, evidence that says otherwise.



posted on Apr, 24 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

Agreed. The entire premise is Neo-Luddite.

Unfortunately, when they do post external sources they censor, distort, edit and misrepresent them. They fail to understand important distinctions, like the difference between a "proposal"and an "implemented program.""


I've yet to see your side refute all the science I posted saying geoengineering is dangerous... God-like pronouncements aside...


Fighting forest fires interferes with Nature, and directly affects climate. By your loose standards, it is geo-emgineering. Is fighting forest fires immoral?


So if we disagree with geoengineering we are Luddites???
*looks around at new macbook, ipad3 and Galaxy sII phone*



Forest fires??? Never been called geoengineering. What a straw man argument.

Your side are really desperate in this argument.

Resorting to straw men and name calling... nice



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 


Just found your thread. Great stuff ! I have long believed what I eye-witnessed : the laying 12 parralel lines across the sky by the same aircraft as if "mowing the lawn". This was about 8 years ago. I talk about it in my Chemtrail Threads:

New chemtrail patents list: The programs and research continues...

Chemtrails: US Patent #5003186: Stratospheric Welsbach Seeding For Reduction Of Global Warming

Chemtrails Flights Exposed - Evergreen Aviation (A CIA Front),





edit on (4/30/12) by AllSeeingI because: spelling



posted on Apr, 30 2012 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by pianopraze
 



So if we disagree with geoengineering we are Luddites???
*looks around at new macbook, ipad3 and Galaxy sII phone*


You are if your objections to geoengineering are based on an emotional revulsion to humanity altering its environment, rather than a rational assessment of both the advantages and disadvantages. All human activity affects the environment. Agriculture has destroyed nearly all the planet's natural ecosystems. Is agriculture immoral?


Forest fires??? Never been called geoengineering. What a straw man argument.


But I just demonstrated how fighting forest fires interferes with a natural cycle. Forest fires contribute carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, which in turn contributes to the greenhouse effect. Although it is not consciously intended to alter the climate, it does. You have not answered the question: is fighting forest fires immoral?


Your side are really desperate in this argument.


Are there sides now? All I've been doing is trying to provide a stimulus to thought. All you have done is make emotional appeals.


Resorting to straw men and name calling... nice


Am I the one that started a thread titled "Are geoengineering deniers immoral?" The title of the thread contains both a strawman and name calling. The implication is that geoengineering is currently happening and that there are evil people denying it. Well, prove that it's going on.You haven't. Yes, there is geoengineering related research going on, and a few crackpot schemes proposed, but it is simply not happening. Insisting on facts and evidence is not "denial," it is skepticism.

The problem is that you are clearly using the term "geoengineerig" as a code word for "chemtrails." You keep denying it, but all of your supporters keep dragging in "evidence" from chemtrail websites. If you mean to say "are chemtrail deniers immoral," say so. There is no such thing as a "geoengineering denier."

Now, is agriculture immoral? It has ruined the Earth's natural state, and is therefore geoengineering on an unprecedented scale. Or are you an "ecology denier?"
edit on 30-4-2012 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)









 
30
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join