While professionals, whoever they might be, may understand the consequences - they will be shouted down, shunted aside, their careers ended.
The WH with Gates blessing will proceed as planned - they know better what’s good for every one; its no different when it comes to climate change, science, weather, etc.
Not sure I agree, I’ve heard criticism of the geoengineering from very mainstream pro-AGW scientists. I think if enough of them raise concerns, Bill Gates will be overruled. But I am realistic enough to recognize that your interpretation could prove correct. The main point is, geoengineering schemes have been proposed in the past and abandoned because of fears of over-correction, not because they threatened the AGW CC theories. For example, damming the Bering Straits has been proposed to keep warm Pacific currents from reaching the southern Beaufort and Chuckchi Seas. It was rejected on the basis that it could lead to a perpetual freeze of those waters and this would endanger various economic and military interests.
This reduction of incoming solar radiation scheme may not strike as many scientists as dangerous, but if there’s any more than about a third of the mainstream pro-AGW types with concerns, then I think it won’t fly. That doesn’t mean of course that a rogue politician bought off by billionaires won’t try to do it anyway, I suppose.
Also I’m not that concerned about it, I just think it will have no effect at all. Weather patterns are driven by energy that is of a different origin (solar system magnetic) and all this will do is cool off all existing weather patterns by a tiny amount. It will end up being like bike lanes or electric vehicles, something with a .01 C footprint that means nothing. They will underestimate how much to put up there to block enough sunlight to accomplish what they think 1% will accomplish, and it won’t do anything. But keep that within the safe confines of the conservative blogosphere.