None of this addresses any of my arguments. As I said, if cloud seeding is implemented in such a way that depends on public support, then it will fail, and if it fails, it’ll do more harm than good. It’s like saying, “What we’re doing now isn’t working and we need to do something, so I’m going to burn down a forest.” If it’s not going to work, then we shouldn’t do it, no matter how desperate we are.

One of the big problems with environmental issues is the delay between cause and effect. Even in the best case scenario, all you’d be doing is increasing that disconnect. People are going to have to see and the consequences if we’re ever going to change. You’re just buying time for us to keep fucking around, but the more time we have to fuck around without finding out, the worse the problem will get.

I’m not inherently opposed to cloud seeding - but only once we’re on the right track. If we have a solid plan towards recovery and just need a bit more time to make it through a tight spot, then sure. But if we’re just spiraling, then it’s just enabling us the make the problem worse. Even in the worst-case scenario you describe, it’s still more of a problem of having the willpower to direct effort and resources at the problem than it being physically impossible to address.