Any scheme to shade the planet would go against solar energy on earth, so would be self defeating. I still pretend that freezing CO2 is the only reasonable alternative. “Reason” being a relative thing here. Carbon Capture & Storage makes no energetic sense (supposing it’s at all possible… in more than a few very special places!… as it already is, in this half dozen places, each a different thing, only one of them, in France a deliberate thermo-generation, plus burial 4,500 meters down in an old gaz field)

From the thermodynamical balance point of view, my point is that geoengineering will require giant amounts of energy (that’s why I brandish Martian geoengineering, a much easier thing…but still very hard…). So nuclear. BTW, CERN, which makes anti-matter, does, thanks to U235 in the six dozen nuclear plants in the area. When electricity gets expensive, in winter, the LHC closes down… Antimatter has the highest energy density, about 150 million the most energetic chemicals…
PA

There is a point in space, between the sun and earth, called the LaGrange point, at which an object will have zero acceleration either way. And, since it is far away from the earth, a reasonable sized metalized foil disc could throw a mighty shadow upon us, causing a mild decrease in the solar insolation.

Just one of many tricks science has up its sleeve.

The planet is warming. No one can stop it, even if we were to cease all burning of fossil fuels today. The die is cast. We must use our brains to keep this fragile planet liveable.

You have to find the truth for yourself, by yourself.

No one is going to tell it to you.

Not even Walter Cronkite.

“And that’s the way it is.”

Then you have intentional lies, these are the celebrities, with their P.R. and Marketing experts, you rightly put them to this category.

2) Truth can also be conveyed by, say, a picture. Or, more precisely, a lab set-up, as in the experience in Quantum Physics.

You seem to say that societal consequences ought to be used to determine truth (no doubt useful). That would pertain just to proposed social truths (as when Hitler claimed his proposed truths would help the Germans; a rough analysis would have shown that the consequence of such suggested “truths” would have entailled a world war, and that this would have cost millions of German dead… So Hitler’s “truths” could not be true…). Is it what you are thinking of?
PA

What you seem to be saying is that some are happy to be followers, because they like to hurt less. I agree that’s a problem with many currents of philosophy and religion. After all, Nietzsche (correctly) called Christianism a slave religion….But it made most people happy…
PA