Of course, in the increasingly religious climate (again, on both sides of the issue) scientists do not dare speak up for fear of losing everything from research grants to their jobs. It is as horrific a transgression of what science is supposed to be about as imaginable. It's politics silencing science.
To be absolutely clear (because these days you have to issue a disclaimer): Yes, climate change is real. Yes, we made it worse.
OK. Calm down. Explain.
Let's take irrefutable scientific evidence first: Based on ice core atmospheric samples we know that CO2 levels, over the last 800,000 years (and likely a lot longer) have fluctuated up and down about 100 ppm. We also know, from the same data, in rough terms, that it takes about 25,000 years for a 100 ppm rise and about 50,000 years for it to drop back 100 ppm. Again, rough strokes. It has never happened much faster or much slower than this. Let's say +/- 50%.
OK, so, the planet, THE ENTIRE PLANET, without a single human being, building, machine, power plant, cars, trains, planes, ships, etc. The entire planet, needs about 50,000 +/- 25,000 years to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentration by 100 ppm. Hard to refute this based on the very reliable evidence we have from ice core samples.
In science we have been known to use simple analytical techniques to get a sense of proportion about things, about what the answer should or might be. A simple example of this is to check the units after a calculation to make sure we ended up with apples rather than oranges. Another example is to check the proportion or scale of things. If you accelerate a 1 Kg object with a 1 N force you don't expect to reach the speed of light in one second. That answer would be wrong and it doesn't take a lot to understand this.
Back to earth and our problem.
Here's the answer politicians (and others) need to provide:
Given that a planet devoid of humans and anything human-made requires at least 50,000 years to reduce atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm:
How do you propose to "save the planet" in just a few years by any method whatsoever, even the elimination of all human life and human creations on earth?
That is the question someone has to answer.
People are proposing to accelerate a process that would require a planet-scale system from a rate of change of 100 ppm in 50,000 years to, say, 100 ppm in 50 to 100 years. That is a ONE-THOUSAND-FOLD improvement on the rate of change!
To press the point further: If humanity did not exist and all of our toys were gone it would take at least 50,000 years.
Very simple analysis reveals that the narratives out there are laughable at best.
What's the next question then?
OK, say we develop a technology that could accelerate this rate of change --again, PLANETARY SCALE-- a thousand fold.
How much energy would be required in order to reduce CO2 by 100 ppm in 50 to 100 years?
How many and what kind of resources? Mining? Manufacturing? Surface area? Water?
How much pollution will be generated by this process? Remember, it is going to have to run 24/7 for a hundred years.
Will the process itself raise the temperature of the planet? Remember, we are trying to affect a planetary-scale system, not your backyard.
What are the ecological and other side-effects of deploying such massive natural and energy resources over a century?
Again, simple analysis reveals that even if we transported the entire United States into space (beam me up!) nothing would change. In fact, CO2 levels would continue to rise exponentially.
These people are demented.
The scientific community needs to rise against this madness and speak the truth. When you have scientists scared for their lives not to tow the politically convenient line you have the makings of a disaster worse than what we purportedly tried to fix in the first place.
What's the solution then?
I don't know. Nobody knows. Because there is no money in approaching this problem from a perspective that will go counter to what politicians need to use to win elections. And so, any researcher daring to do so is likely to end-up driving Uber for a living.
Here's what we do know: Plant billions of trees! This is the natural technology WE KNOW captures CO2 and WE KNOW how to deploy at scale without massive ecological and other consequences. Deforestation is part of the reason humans have contributed to this issue. Plant damn trees!
Here's something else we know: It will take THOUSANDS of years for a meaningful reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere. Generations. Hundreds of generations. Humanity might not even be around by the time this happens. So, let's cool it with all the crazy stuff and virtue signaling and start talking about real scientific reality for a change.
Easy example: Make front lawns in a megalopolis like Los Angeles illegal. No more grass in front of homes. It's a waste of water. And, to add insult to injury, there's all those damn gas-powered mowers, blowers and trimmers. It's a travesty. Instead, require one to two trees per home in the front instead of grass. It will make streets beautiful and capture CO2. It's a better use of water and you eliminate mowers, blowers and trimmers burning gas for no reason at all.
Anyhow, I could go on. Cloudflare would help the universe far more if they planted trees like it's the end of the world. It isn't, of course, but if we keep talking about the wrong solutions it will be, eventually, at least for humans.
Disagree? No problem. Explain how you would accelerate the planetary-scale historical rate of change a thousand-fold and not turn the planet into an ecological disaster in the process. Simple.