Cold Fusion sounds sexy. You have my support. 

This is such a flawed logic. Do you know that 1 millionare in the US sends more pollution to the environment than tens of thousands of poor Africans? And that one billionare also wastes more food/water and consumes more resources than thousands of the overpopulated poor? It also doesn't help that our large industries have their factories located in poverish nations without much regulation which further increases the pollution in our atmosphere. Overpopulation is NOT a "major" issue in regards to global warming at least. It is however becoming a problem with food and water (especially in nations where there is already a short supply).

WOW, there should be more money invested in this if that's the case.

If that were true, then people in Africawould have less children. Historically, the higher the level of education and standard if living gets, the less children people have. Poor uneducated people tend to have lots of children, despite the fact that doing so is very counter-productive.

Cold fusion is non-existant at the moment and most scientists don't believe it is even possible.

Normal fusion reactors on the other hand are famously always fifty years away from being commercial.

heck, I would be satisfied if they even manage to build normal fusion reactors. Both are very similar anyways. Both produce unbelievable masses of energy with very little danger involved.

Cold fusion would have the unbelievable advantage of not taking the energy of several nuclear bombs to get started. They've built fusion reactors but they take a certain amount of energy to get started and they can only run for a certain amount of time (because magnets cannot perfectly contain the plasma) - up until now the energy to start the reaction has been greater than the energy collected from the reaction. ITER should be the first energy positive reactor, hugely expensive though. ITER will probably cost twice what the LHC did.

yeah, I read about ITER, too. It looks promising, but the price is astronomical. In the best case scenario for 2050, energy is cheap as ass, all cars and most industrries run on energy rather on oil or coal, and the energy is produced by some fusion reactors, so basically all cars and factories are green. Sadly, I think monopolists and capitalists will let that future come into fruition.

Yeah, but a lot of people don't like it because of ethical concerns and the like.  First there's the "not natural" arguement that you basically hear from everone against all technology when it first comes out... and additionally more troubling would be that the countries that develop the technology will have the ability to alter climate at will and one global tempeture isn't "best" for all countries.  I mean heck, Russia and Canada for example would actually be better served if there was global warming.

Back when Ahmadinejad claimed that europe was "Stealing it's rain" I think that shortly after one US state threatened to sue Texas for it's advanced cloud seeding expierments.  So it's probably where he got the idea from.

One of the best reasons to focus most on Geoengineering though is that it's totally possible, man made or not, that we've already hit a "tipping point".

It seems like the "tipping point" issue keeps getting pushed back as we miss each date, so whether we really aren't there yet, or are but it's politically being pushed back... who can say.

Eventually though if it gets hot enough the earth goes into an unstoppable naturally unbalanced heating system, where the heat melts ice, which puts more emisions in the air... which raises heat, which puts more emissions in the air.

By 'global temperature', do you mean that there would be the same temperature worldwide if this thing were used? 'Cause I somehow don't think that would be good for different ecosystems.