[boringg]

This is and will always be a terrible way to solve the problem. Should be in the same category as nuclear weapons. Abjectly terrible idea.

All the people pushing this idea truly dont understand the implications, think they are smarter than they are, and think this is the easy and obvious solution.

[matthewdgreen]

This might be the only solution. At any point in the near future we may learn that our previously-emitted GHGs have locked us into a climate feedback loop that ends with unsurvivable temperature increases (at least, unsurvivable for global civilization.) At that point what's the alternative? (And yes: it is catastrophic that we've put ourselves in a situation where this might be our only hope of surviving, happy to discuss the allocation of blame for that mistake.)

[luma]

Nobody has said this is an easy solution, just that it might be a possible solution. If this one is as bad as you claim, what is the better solution you had in mind? Is that solution actually feasible? If your plan was "massive cut in emmissions", my response is how do you plan on making that feasible when it hasn't been tus far?

Or was your plan just to shoot down every solution proposed and to do nothing at all instead?

[lumost]

This seems overly dismissive of a solution to a rapidly approaching crises effecting billions of people.

Geoengineering can be studied like anything else. If applied, it will have negative externalities like everything else. The few millions spent is a small bet on something that could have a big impact.

[timmg]

Can you explain why?

[boringg]

As humans we like to think that we can control effectively however it's clearly not the case. Something like geo-engineering while certainly possible to study certainly wouldn't be able to understand the ripple effects. Its tantamount to releasing a a non-native species into the wild to control another species will creating another whole host of problems. Geo-engineering is just that on a larger and potentially more deleterious scale.