Doomist Proclamations and the Silence About Geoengineering

Imagine for a moment a scenario in which we were told that it is as certain as it is possible for anything to be certain that a massive asteroid is headed straight for Earth and that its impact will destroy civilization, and perhaps humanity itself.

Imagine that there was a suggestion of launching a space mission to divert that asteroid and thus save Earth.

Imagine that opponents of that mission pointed out that the mission could fail altogether to divert the asteroid, or perhaps causing a piece of the asteroid to break off and possibly do damage to the Earth even as the bulk of it is diverted--and then everyone said "All right, because of the risks involved in attempting to deflect certain doom for everyone and everything let's rule the idea of a space mission out of discussion altogether, permanently."

This can seem to be the stance of climate doomists regarding geoengineering. They are certain that absolute catastrophe in the near-term is locked in, and yet absolutely opposed to even discussing any action that might buy time because it is "too risky."

I cannot take such an intellectual position seriously. If the situation really is "that bad"--if the apocalypse is at hand--then one expects that, unpleasant as the risks may be, one is willing to bear some risk of unfortunate side effects to head off certain disaster. Alas, that assumes an interest in actually resolving the problem--which, it seems, is quite an uncertain proposition where they are concerned.