I'd certainly be very wary about even more geo-engineering (which is what AGW basically is) - we would need to be absolutely 100% certain of the outcome - which in science is never the case when looking to the future. If we were 97% certain that nothing would go wrong, would we justify gambling the whole planet on that??
Cheers - John
Well, it was of course a hypothetical point. I just wondered if our view on Co2 would change from being detrimental in a warming period to beneficial in a cooling period if we accept that Co2 causes warming. That was the point I was trying to make.
It is convenient that a link can be drawn. This is a shame because it sends us off in the wrong direction and detracts from the issue at hand - why we have increased Co2 in the first place.
Like I have said on many occasions we are treating the symptoms of the illness, and not what caused the illness in the first place.