About 5 tons of materials, so less than what a single family produces in trash over the lifetime of the satellites.

About 5 years, depending on the exact mass, size, and the solar activity.

They are in a 525km high orbit, and small satellites have more drag, so they'll all deorbit relatively quickly.

Go ahead and compare all scientific publications with the views summarized in the IPCC report, and demonstrate how it doesn't represent the consensus views.

You might have a point if there was a disagreement between "most scientists" and "most studies", but there isn't.

Nobody claims that science should follow consensus, or even that consensus is important for science. Consensus is only relevant when you want to take a body of scientific knowledge and turn it into something that laypeople can use it to inform themselves and make policy decisions.

Yes, people get it wrong all the time, but we still have to make decisions every day, and consensus is the best tool we have. Scientists with a different viewpoint are welcome to continue their research and try to convince everybody else.

If the models are improved, that does not "move the goalposts" in any way. Why should anyone want to run a less accurate model if they have access to a better one ?

If your argument is that the models have been manipulated to fit the narrative, then you need to present the evidence for that.

The UN climate report represents the consensus view of climate scientists. It sounds like you're just complaining about popular press/politicians not being entirely accurate in representing it in the media.

Which is ?

Since most of this is from COVID-19, we should wait and see what happens after the epidemic is gone. Most likely CO2 emissions will bounce back up, but we don't know to what degree. It is possible that we'll keep working from home more than before, for instance.

Next time, just post a link.

The problem with that view is that you need an expert to understand the evidence. Somebody may collect some piece of evidence, for example about the Arctic & Antarctic ice, and then come up with a hypothesis to explain the observations in a scientific paper. But you can't expect laymen (including politicians) to go read that paper, and all other papers, and form a good opinion.

So the obvious solution is that the politician asks a team of scientists to read the paper and translate it into something they can understand. If the scientists don't all agree, then you have to form some kind of consensus view with the most likely explanation.

Maybe people are just tired of arguing about climate change, and are making bots to do the work for them.

We can't even show that it's theoretically possible with the amount of energy that is available to us. If a warp drive would consume more energy than is available in the entire solar system, it's not really a solution.

It's a good bet that civilizations will destroy themselves on a regular basis, though.

Even if life is forming easily, intelligent life capable of making technology is another matter.

It took only a few hundred million years to form life on Earth, but it took another 4 billion before that life had invented a radio.

If it had taken another billion more, the Sun would already be killing it.