200 Scientists wrote a letter pleading against geo-engineering, are they wrong?
They are not wrong about the science. All the science presented here is from scientific institutions.
They object in particular to the idea of injecting Sulphur compounds into the atmosphere on the grounds of unintended consequences.
The unintended consequences of that might be acid rain. An irony is that when the world switched from sulphur heavy ships' fuel, the warming went up. Removing that sulphur was a mistake from the global warming perspective. That was an unintended consequence.
The whole Industrial Revolution has had that same unintended consequence. Engineers never meant to ruin the environment. But now they must be allowed to make the corrections.
So as engineers, yes, the scientists are wrong.
I cannot promise that the Ocean Mirror will have no unintended consequences. But without it, the many positive technologies being developed will not be enough.
Correcting the Albedo, the reflectivity, of our Earth is the only fast way to offset the greenhouse effect. At some point the science community will realise that en masse.
The climate is going wrong fast! Not in northern Europe so much, but in much of the world and especially in the oceans. The ocean surfaces are hot. That drives the extreme weather, the floods, the droughts, the winds, the tornados.
The scientists do know about the methane and the albedo, they are measuring those things, they know the effect is accelerating, they know we have to do something.
But the emphasis on carbon is just unrealistic. The carbon burning is continuing, actually increasing while trying to pretend carbon capture is significant. A great idea but the scale is wrong.
Maybe atmospheric sulphur is a bad idea, it was why I devised the floating mirror idea for the Pacific, surely more manageable, simpler technology and less likely to cause secondary consequences. And it can have the scale we need.