While it is clear that Iain Carstairs has quite a few misunderstandings and even a lack of understanding about the subject of ordinary contrails, on closer examination of his article I came across this:
Iain Carstairs said:
Be all that as it may, at a recent conference on geoengineering Keith welcomes further oprobium on the heads of micro-focused scientists by exposing his own – far from uncharacteristic – reckless personality. When questioned about the morality of dumping ten million tons of aluminum patricles into the stratosphere without having done any toxicology studies, and without bothering to read the ones already done which reveal that 10 micron particles of aluminum are extremely dangerous to human health, he grinned and shrugged:
“I don’t see it as a moral issue.. it’s more like freeriding on our grandkids.”
I’ve been in touch with Ken Caldeira and David Keith and they have nothing to say about chemtrails at all: they say their geoengineering would look more diffused, being at higher altitudes, and they swear it isn’t them. Like many intellectuals, they live in a bubble, think in a bubble, work in a bubble, and focus on whatever is on the tip of their nose: unconcerned about the sensibilities of people who see something seriously amiss in the skies – and failing to see that whether responsible or not, the inevitable exposé will wreck their own credibility – they casually waft away the danger posed by injecting 10 megatons of 10 micron particles into our lungs. After all, what interests them is the science. Now, that is fascinating. All else, including the devastation of the planet on which they live, is a trifle of no concern.
Searching for the quote which Carstairs claims is from the University of Calgary's Dr. David Keith, the only website on earth using that specific wording for such a quote turns out to be Iain Carstairs' site:
Search using "I don't see it as a moral issue.... "David Keith"
What to make of this? Is it possible that Carstairs is misquoting Keith for some reason?
Yes! Carstairs has not only quoted Keith in a context completely different from the one where Keith actually used a similar quote, he is doing so while also misquoting the words he actually used.
Consider the context which Carstairs puts this quote into play. He says that Keith was being questioned about the morality of geoengineering, that he mentioned having done no toxicology studies, and just "grinned and shrugged" before he made the quoted statement.
That is simply a totally false portrayal of not only the context of the event, not only the verbal context surrounding the quote, but even Carstair's description of Keith as having "grinned and shrugged" is incorrect. All of these are complete fabrications
! Carstairs just made them up. He lied.
In an effort to show the correct context, meaning, and even a direct response from Keith about the quote, you should refer to Mick West's previous work on this subject: Debunked: "Geoengineering is like free-riding on our Grandkids"
First, the correct verbal context of the quote. David Keith is standing at a podium speaking to a room of people, he is not answering questions about toxicology.
The more we do research, the less easy this will look, the more complicated the environmental effects will look. And that's a good thing, because right now it looks too easy. So I think that if we do more research we're likely to find out that it's harder and more complicated than we thought, and that the side effects are harder to manage. And that's a healthy outcome that will make it easier to do the management(?). Of course, the opposite reaction is possible. It's an empirical question how people will react to knowledge about this. Another reaction is to say "if these crazy scientists are SO concerned about putting CO2 in the atmosphere that they want to think about these things, then that might mean actually mean we should be more serious about the risks of CO2 in the atmosphere".
And by the way, it's not really a moral hazard, it's more like free riding on our grandkids.
You can see Keith make the quote right here on video.
As you can see, Iain Carstairs has not only divorced the quote from it's context, he has deliberately replaced
the context by changing it to one in which Keith is being questioned from one in which he is simply giving a talk to an audience. Carstairs also changed the quote by deleting the "And by the way, it's not really a moral hazard
" into, "I don't see it as a moral hazard
Quoting out of context could possibly be understood if the comment was difficult to understand. As Mick's research in the link above
showed, the specific wording Keith used ("moral hazard")is somewhat arcane unless you are familiar with economic or casualty insurance matters.
But Carstairs has taken an out-of-context quote to a whole new level by changing the situational context as well as re-wording the actual quote.
I cannot see any excuse for such a deliberate set of changes. It is clear that this was a conscious act meant to persuade by deception.
Suggestion for improvement:
Iain Carstairs needs to carefully examine his personal moral compass and ask himself why he did that to Keith. He should remove the quote altogether since in context it does his case no good at all, and he should directly apologize to David Keith.