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.

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).

No, I mean global tempeture as in how it's used now. 

For example if global warming increased, Russia and Canada would get much more fertile and much larger amounts of farmland even though it'd get warmer and crapier for some people below them.

During the last global warming period for example, the UK and northern europe flourish while wines which used to come out of southern europe declined heavily.

To put it in simplistic terms since i'm about to leave, it'd be just like argueing over thermostat in a house.

Yes, now I understand. Seems like this will be a pretty controversial issue, as there will clearly be nations totally against it. It's quite worrying, as I assume total consensus would have to be reached before using this, and some nations might rather go to war...

well thats if we cant get people to stop having more than 1 child. 

overpopulation is a Major issue that is constantly being disreguarded, action must happen, and if we dont want war and genocide in the future, a global action such as one child policy enforced gloabally is our only chance from global destabilsation from global warming + destruction of food producing land + lack of water.