Some of the science is settled. It's generally accepted even by global warming "deniers" in the scientific community that co2 will warm the planet. The problem with the gloval warming alarmists is in how they want to mitigate the effects of increased co2. Because of uncertainty about how increased co2 will effect the global climate a conservative opinion would be to reduce co2 while increasing energy availability and lowering costs. That has proven to be a difficult task. Cheap energy in some form other than fossil fuels would insure it's immediate adoption and the replacement of fossil fuel. Besides for the technical issues there is another problem and that is vested interests and the desire by environmentalist to reduce consumerism. Consumerism is based on the availability of cheap plentiful energy.

You can trace the industrial revolution based on cheap and plentiful energy. First it was water wheels, which have the disadvantages of being limited to rare locations and reliability. Next there was steam which solved the location problem but depended on a limited supply of wood that was expensive in labor to harvest. The breakthrough came with the adoption of coal to make steam and the iron to make steam machines. Steam however had it's own problems. It took massive machinery and was inefficient. Coal was slowly replace by oil which had the advantage of being used in internal combustion machines. Oil was even easier to extract and transport than coal making it cheap abundant and mobile. Coal was reduced to being used where massive machinery was more efficient such as power plants and for a while trains. All was well as wealth increased dramatically and the middle class exploded. Fast forward to the end of the twentieth century or a little earlier and suddenly people notice that consumerism and the industrial can with a price tag, environmental degradation.

The environmentalists solution to environmental degradation is essentially to reduce wealth. To reverse the industrial revolution and by extension population growth. It has inherently become a misanthropic movement. The dogma is get back to nature and let nature take it's course which of course means severe environmental selection or if you like Darwinian selection. The problem is of course that their solution will destroy nature because if people start starving because someone pulled the wheels off of the industrial revolution they will eat everything in sight. It will as Joe Biden has discovered also end their strangle hold on the political machinery when people wake up to the true cost of deindustrialization.

If you are rich and isolated from the anarchy that is "communist" environmentalism you may have no problem with deindustrialization because you will not be required to deindustrialize your own life. You can build solar panels, have your own food grown in green houses, your own water supply, keep just enough petroleum to keep your jet and yacht going. If you are not rich you may think deindustrialization is not such a good idea and you would be right. If you are China and India you will not go along with eliminating fossil fuels when your society is just starting to enjoy the benefits of cheap and abundant energy and starvation is a thing of the past.

The first thing to keep in mind is that there is no "solution". Something no politician, especially a socialist politician wants to hear. Solutions are their way to power. They will always come up with a "solution" to an unsolvable problem. If the planet warms we are just going to have to adapt and if the politicians refuse to go the adaptation route we peasants have got to get rid of them. Their replacement have got to understand that the peasants will not bear the burden of deindustrialization. Industrialization that just a hundred years ago raised us above the status of beasts of burden. They do have choices such as nuclear energy and building more hydroelectric. Yes those come with environmental risks but the risks are more fairly distributed among the rich and not so rich. We also are going to have to keep using a lot of fossil fuel for heavy equipment. Electric vehicles will be fine once they are practical. Ending co2 use is suicidal for us peasants. If you can't afford enough solar cells and an electric vehicle etc. to be off the grid then you are not rich enough to "deindustrialize" which of course means you will not actually be deindustrializing, that is for the peasants.

Climate science is more a political movement and "the science" justifies its agenda. One of climate science early strong advocates was Al Gore, a politician. Over simplified explanations are good for religious dogmas. If you talked about climate models in the 1970's you were a weather nerd. We have chemistry, electrical engineering, materials science. But none of these disciplines lend themselves to useful political hijacking.

Historically humans have always worried about the climate for good reason. We had various weather gods which were leveraged for ancient politics. And ancient humans endured much more extreme weather changes. Today what is remarkable is how mild and generally steady the climate has been.

Randall Carlson and others have studied ancient climate and its way more crazy than anything modern humans have experienced