In comic books, it’s generally the maniacal villain who builds the weather domination device, intent on ruling the world. Real life, however, with its looming threat of climate change, might force the good guys into that role.

Problem is, nobody can agree whether tinkering with the climate is a good guy kind of thing to do. The time is near for our hero to choose a path, if a recent flurry of political statements on geoengineering—which would modify Earth’s climate in an attempt to counteract climate change—are any evidence.

Since late September, both the U.S. Government Accountability Office and the House Committee on Science and Technology have issued reports supporting open dialogue and targeted research on how the nation might advance geoengineering.

Even if climate engineering efforts aren't mad science, they smack of hubris. Most current proposals fall into one of two areas—plans that would remove carbon dioxide from the air and those that would cool the climate by reflecting sunlight away from the earth, much like the natural effects of a volcanic explosion.

Although neither report recommends taking steps to engineer the climate, they nod to the possibility that the nation might need to some day.

“If climate change is one of the greatest long-term threats to biological diversity and human welfare, then failing to understand all of our options is also a threat,” Committee Chairman Bart Gordon states in the forward to the report, Engineering the Climate: Research Needs and Strategies for International Collaboration.

The report, completed in conjunction with the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, calls for transparency, international collaboration, and an assessment of geoengineering's risks. Similarly, the GAO report recommends forming a clear research strategy as part of the federal response to climate change.

Not everyone believes climate engineering is such a good idea. The UN Convention on Biological Diversity adopted a moratorium last week "until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks," according to Nature News.

In addition to the possible dangers of toying with the atmosphere, detractors are concerned that a successful climate engineering scheme might be a temporary fix that would lessen public resolve to limit fossil fuel consumption.

Although the moratorium isn’t legally binding and many have criticized its vague language and head-in-the-sand viewpoint, it could still have a chilling effect on research, leading Congressman Gordon to send up a signal that we're tying our heroes' hands.

As he writes in the report, “Scientific research and risk assessment is essential to developing an adequate scientific basis on which to justify or prohibit any action related to climate change, including climate engineering activities.”