Artificial climate intervention could completely destroy the planet, so we probably shouldn’t do...

So much is unpredictable and could go wrong. No matter how much science observes the natural world around us when we try to do what nature does we inevitably omit some of the variables. Its sort of "the more we know, the more we don't know" paradox. So when we "play" at mimicking nature on a global scale, the potential for the unexpected negative consequences has a global outcome.

Science never asks if the pursuit of a particular knowledge is good or bad. It just pursues. If man-made climate change is fact, science will study it; and eventually a scientist will say "I wonder what will happen if I ...?"
After that the only questions are:
_Will this be good, bad, or indifferent?
_If it goes bad, will enough of us survive to pick up the pieces and go on?
_When will we tray again?

I've encountered material of that type before, I've looked at a good deal of it. I can completely comprehend the slippery slope argument involved, certainly. Cloud seeding is the most obvious example, of course, I've read of more outlandish related concepts, similarly. Let me go over the piece more thoroughly, for awhile, before I try to give any more in-depth thoughts, however, I can obviously realize why it caught your eye, by all means.