I think it is clear that the original experiment was done poorly and with questionable motives, but the fact remains that there were a lot of doomsday type predictions. There was talk of criminally prosecuting people involved. Then, as time went by, it simply disappears from any real discussion among scientists. There is still a movement abroad to test seeding, but the opposition is stiff. If scientists really believed the earth was doomed, it seems they would be more open to experiments, regardless of the chance of some long term negative effects. The fact that they are not, leads me to question the true movement against global warming. Is the lack of follow up and opposition to further testing due to economics? I talked to my kids, who are constantly bombarded with the dangers of global warming. None of them had heard of the theory of carbon sequestration through iron seeding. One has to weigh the cost vs. benefit. Imagine if we could end deforestation in the amazon through proper fertilization of the existing soil. One may argue run off would damage the ecosystem, but a unless a full study is done, it would be impossible to tell the cost vs. benefit. Right now it does not appear anyone has a cost benefit for seeding, nor are there any real plans to do one. This seems very strange, as it could be the best approach to combat global warming. Just because there are strong motivations that are different from the primary motivation of combating global warming does not necessarily make seeding wrong. There is a strong economic benefit to planting trees, but also a strong environmental benefit. In fact, in some cases, land owners can also get carbon credits through forestry practices.
From the response here, it does not appear anyone has any solid reports of damage done by the Haida Gwaii seeding. If you have heard of any, I would love to hear about it. The fact is, I am looking but still have not found any.