It isn't as if pretty much every single time throughout all of human history when we five with nature we either make things worse or just flat out destroy a local environment. Nope, no sirree! Humans do not have a near 100% failure rate trying to manually improve on nature.
Most the time the manipulation wasn't even intentional. For example, introducing new predator species everywhere as ships cross oceans. There are very few islands left that don't have a highly destructive foreign species breeding g out of control or having already wiped out some local wild life. And those events are usually by accident. Except of course where we intentionally introduced outside species and shockingly the same thing happened. Or over farming, using up all the water resources in an area. And so on. I'm sure you can all think of many others.
Want to fix the climate? Sounds great. Do it by ceasing activity that caused the problem in the first place. Remove humans as much as possible from the equation. This could mean more renewables, lower birth rates, more efficient buildings and cars and shutting down old inefficient crap. (And nuke China, it'll be worth it in the long run).
But letting a bunch of arrogant hubris spewing numb skulls who seriously believe they understand the planet so well *and* our planet's interaction with the Sun start fucking with the climate on a global scale using the only planet we have as a giant lab experiment? That is sheer madness and absolutely guaranteed to go worse than doing nothing at all. SMH! What a dumb idea.
I pity your grand kids if this shit is allowed to happen.
OTOH, if this is just the usual "we came up with a great idea for more grant money and we won't even need to show results for decades!" scam (I used to work in academia and have assisted in grant writing, it's very cynical), then carry on, it's just more waste no one will notice. Welfare for otherwise unemployable PhDs. I'm ok with that.