There's a conflict brewing in the global warming issue - The 193-nation Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has called for "no climate-related geoengineering activities that may affect biodiversity ... until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities."

Well, what is 'adequate' scientific basis?   It is the nature of climate that nothing can be considered accurate in the sense of physics.   ETC, the Canadian group that pushed for the language behind the scenes, says it is a "a de facto moratorium on geoengineering projects and experiments."

There's been something of a truce among climate activists and scientists recently, because scientists were saying things in line with the agendas of advocates, but will scientists fall in line when they are told they can't do research on all solutions to the global warming problem? 

Sloppy language is the curse of the modern world - even the Supreme Court has issued its share of poorly written law in the last few decades so it's no surprise an advocacy group has wording that is too broad.   But so what?   How many signatories will this 'statement' receive?   

As I discussed in LOHAFEX - If You Mean Well, Are You Allowed To Screw Up The Ocean? , countries have no problem ignoring even treaties they do ratify, so this is unlikely to make much of a difference.  But it shows that there are fractures and divergent goals when it comes to solving a problem that gets closer each day.