> I see no evidence or reason to believe that an effort to reduce solar irradiance distracts from the control of greenhouse gases on a civilizational scale.
Then you are not paying attention.
We need to shut these liars down and stop thinking that we can make huge changes to complex systems that we do not understand and have predictable results, let alone good results
What gives you the epistemic right to dismiss a proposal not on its scientific merits, but on some assumption about the certain moral evil of the people who said it?
To assert that it is possible using engineering to have predictable control over a system that we only have the barest understanding of (Earth's geophysical systems) is a straight up lie.
By that logic, there is no point in doing anything at all. Who knows whether we can avoid burning by stopping CO2 emissions? It's all too complex!
You can't separate the scientists whose models told you to reduce CO2 and the scientists who propose reducing solar irradiance with bubble shades. They're all using the same equations to predict what will happen.
Then you are not paying attention.
We need to shut these liars down and stop thinking that we can make huge changes to complex systems that we do not understand and have predictable results, let alone good results