Yes, I am confused how an intentional intervention is so frowned upon when unintentional interventions are done on a continuous basis: mass deforestation, mass greenhouse emissions, mass oceanic acidification, satellite deorbiting, mass air transit, massive water redistribution projects etc

Maybe the key to not face the scrutiny of non-interventionists is to mask the intervention as an unrelated commercial venture, in which case it should be pretty much good to go.

Most of the things you mention (e.g. deforestation, water redistribution) are things people worry about. In fact, the people worried about large scale interventions are usually also the people most worried about emissions, deforestation, ocean acidification, etc. So I don't think there's much hypocrisy here.

> Yes, I am confused how an intentional intervention is so frowned upon when unintentional interventions are done on a continuous basis...?

What's so confusing? By the nature of being intentional, an intentional intervention can be stopped before it does harm.

It's weird logic to think caution should be thrown to the wind because some bad unintentional things weren't prevented.

But a lot of people freak out about attempting geoengineering at all, even at a small scale. There's a UN treaty prohibiting it.

No treaty prohibiting the emission of 36 billion tons of CO2 every year though.