The assumption of either position for or against as absolute, is anti-science.
Science is the process of questioning the 'experts' and testing.
It is when we stop questioning, that science ends.
In this case you are both more right than wrong.
An absolute position against unknown anthropogenic experiments with the ocean and the atmosphere is
not anti-science. The position, that changing the composition of the ocean and the atmosphere doesn't change the climate in the ocean and the atmosphere is not only anti-science; it is a super-hyper-idiotic position.
When you stop questioning, you stop learning.
The people that think they know everything can learn nothing. They assume they know the answers before the experiment.
You seek to stop waste, good for you. You also like to argue. Maybe that is also a waste, of your time, especially when you argue with people that aren't even arguing with you.