There's an interesting article titled "Active Climate Stabilization: Practical Physics-Based Approaches to Preventing Climate Change" that can be found in "The Carbon Dioxide Dilemma: Promising Technologies and Policies" (http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10798/html).
Now that I've lost your attention, ESOTERIC ZOMBIE WAXING SPONGES!
Now that I've got it back, lemme explain the article a bit.
First, there are a lot of global warming (at least anthropogenic global warming) naysayers out there. These people are what we call "high", but all right, let's say they're right. Whether you want to believe that global warming is happening or whether it's attributable to you or me (mostly me, sorry...), there's something we could do to solve the problem.
A screen! In space! ZOMBIE WAXING! Essentially, a screen some 10^6km large is placed between the Earth and the Sun to selectively scatter deleterious UV and the harshest of the Sun's rays to lower global temperatures.
The article goes into further detail, but we'd essentially enjoy cooler temperatures, bluer skies, prettier sunsets, and less deleterious UV rays, which translates into greatly reduced skin cancer risks and much higher plant productivity. The thing would be invisible to the naked eye, and would cost maybe USD $1 billion a year commencing half a century hence if we put it up now. This could be mitigated by created a sinking fund of USD $1.7 in a bank now so that the $1 billion would be self-generating. And if an Ice Age hits and things get too cool we simply move it.
Whaddya think? Check out the article and let me know what sort of counter-arguments you'd have against it? I think it's a brilliant idea! You can also check out more at http://www.llnl.gov/global-warm/
Couldn't find the article that you linked; they must have moved it. So, all I know is what you wrote, but I dunno... these things always sound quite simple when first suggested, but they always end up costing at least 10 times more than estimated, are far less effective than first thought, and involve heaps of unexpected consequences that years down the track, people say "Well of COURSE they should have realised that the earth would be harmed in ways A, B and C... it's so obvious". Apart from that, and remembering that I don't actually have a clue about what is being suggested, it sounds like an interesting concept.