The reading about geoengineering was not what I expected. I thought it was going to be another good example of how to formulate an argument. Surprisingly, it was terribly constructed and did NOT convince me that geoengineering would be an effective method for preventing our climate from warming. Throughout the argument he jumped from one idea to the next. I think he mentioned the idea of establishing international laws for geoengineering numerous time throughout his paper. He did not have organization and it was extremely hard to follow his logic. He also concentrated on too many negative aspects of genoengineering to even convince me that it would be beneficial. Admitting that there is not a lot of research being conducted about geoengineering is not a good argument supporting your idea. Maybe I completely missed the mark on this article, but I thought it was poorly written.