If the problem with SRM is not scientific, no amount of scientific research is going to make the least bit of difference. I conclude therefore that research into the specifics of SRM mainly serves to advance the probability of deployment of an unworkable 'solution'.

Finally, I acknowledge that many of my colleagues think differently - some scientists see useful lines of research that can be funded using money from the increasing enthusiasm of Congress and others, even while they wouldn't support deployment. Some (like Keith) are actively for deployment.

By far the biggest problem, to my mind at least, is the 'moral hazard': any benefit will be more than offset by an extended license to operate for the fossil fuel corporations.

Research could also advance the improbability of a proposed solution. You are using strong words against atmospheric research. My judgment is that research on the(non-)viability of policy options and international law will be more decisive to enhance or stop SRM than (not-)doing atmospheric research