From an engineer who is deeply worried about climate change, it is easy to judge that such as from this article will never take place and feeding our atmosphere with sulfuric acid is way off the scale of "achievable" to be a fraction of a significant discourse on reversing or slowing even climate change. Someone would anticipate for much better writing than this in an article written by three professors from Cambridge Center, Carnegie Mellon University and Harvard University. I could not help but marvel whether this article was hurriedly brought to press in response to a number of the references in the article such as Barker et al. (2007), Blackstock et al. (2009), Robock (2008), Royal Society (2009), and Nordhaus (2008), which were all significant publications concerning this topic of climate change. All this books which the article referenced gave revealing arguments against climate engineering/geoengineering and the authors made them clearly, movingly, persuasively, and without typos, unlike McClellan, Keith & Apt (2012).
This article fails to make the point that a majority of geoengineerings vocal supporters only have a financial concern in the field. There is tons of cash to be made in this field if the idea of geoengineering finally takes off. McClellan, Keith & Apt (2012) fail to acknowledge they indeed do have such a financial concern in a firm working on eliminating carbon dioxide from the environment, but then they brush that aside through saying their financial concern is not in solar-radiation managing, which is the center of this article. I would opt to read a thoughtful article by any scholar with no financial concern in climate engineering in any way.