I didn't imply a conspiracy. I pointed out a bias. If your professional live is spent measuring, testing, and hypothesising about hammers, then a lot of problems will look like nails.
Lets look at your post
Like it's the climate scientists who design and implement CO2 abatement policies? No, that's economists and politicians.
I hope the economists and politicians are are working with scientists on this. The IPCC has a great amount of input from scientists.
Geoengineering is an ENGINEERING project. Scientists might tell engineers how much needs to happen, but they're not the ones who would design, build, or deploy the devices.
Now you are quibbling over diction. There are no geoengineers. Just like in the start of the computeing era there were no computer engineers. The first computers were created by. . .SCIENTISTS. Feyman needed to crunch numbers for artillery and later particle trajectories. Von Neumann was the same. The scientists are just about the only people that understand the problem. They will have to be in on designing and implementing the solution.
Besides, if you're insinuating that climate geoengineering is all a scientific conspiracy to get funding dollars, that's pretty lame. Even if you're a conspiracy nutjob, how is inventing a cheaper solution (geoengineering) than existing plans (emissions abatement) going to get them more money?
I am just suggesting that you look at the bias in those surveyed. Most people who legitimately disagree with anthropogenic global warming don't call themselves climate scientists. They call themselves geologists, astrophysicists, statisticians, economists, and other scientists. They were excluded from the survey of "climate scientists".
