ago.

His take was that from a thermodynamic perspective, 99%+ of the temperature of the planet is dictated by the amount of radiant energy we get from the sun. The rest of the controlling factors are things like the water cycle and greenhouse effects (both natural and anthropomorphic). So from a pure problem-solving perspective, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on the primary influencer of the outcome (i.e. energy from the sun) instead of all the almost statistically insignificant influencers (namely, mankind's influence)?

We have the technology today to put 1/2 to 1 sq km reflective solar sails in orbit around the planet that could be angled to either reflect more energy from the sun to the surface (to warm the planet) or deflect it out into space (to cool the planet).

If we wanted to control the temperature of the earth, we could do it without really changing anything in our global energy policies. Likely at a fraction of the cost, too. He spitballed the cost of enough solar sails in orbit to be effective at under $1T.

But that particular approach doesn't fit any of the policymaker's narratives.