Among the many annoying half-truths of this article is that he doesn't make any attempt to discuss why the predictions from the 1990s were wrong. For example,

Among the many annoying half-truths of this article is that he doesn't make any attempt to discuss why the predictions from the 1990s were wrong. For example, we now know that dumping of heat and CO2 into the oceans is a bigger effect than originally modeled. In other words, thinking about the big picture, things are worse than was thought (because it means measures like putting up giant sky-mirrors aren't going to reverse committed warming as easily as they might). Ultimately, he advocates technological fixes. For a more critical, but highly readable, look at this subject, see Michael Specter's "The Climate Fixers" from the New Yorker this past May: http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/14/120514fa_fact_specter http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/14/120514fa_fact_... Had the OP read the New Yorker article, he might also understand that his references to "forbidden thoughts" are entirely unjustified. The thoughts he expresses are actually quite conventional, and widely discussed in scientific circles.