Competing hypotheses are relatively common in the sciences.
there is not only a sudden influx of the very gases that are the root cause of the crisis, but worse, we are losing probably the most important tool for scrubbing them. This one-two punch may mean that it's already too late.
If you look at a globe, you'll see bands of desert and temperate weather. These bands occur where, on average, the rain passes over (having evaporated but not yet cool enough to condense) and where it falls (the temperature is cool enough from where it evaporated to condense and fall).
The simple reality is that, for every ton of fossil fuel burned, it remains part of the carbon cycle, regardless of how many trees are planted. Some trees will hold the carbon longer depending on how long they live, but it's always temporary.
With all of these sources of bias, both outside and inside of science, one has to wonder what the future of science might look like. It is time to take science more seriously at the risk of serious health and potentially death in the future of the human species, just as it is time to re-examine control of scientific findings at the risk of elitism within science itself.
the idea of science classes is not to make people change their beliefs, but rather, to teach to question everything. The theory of evolution is based on the scientific method, the heart of every science course, while creationism is faith based. Just because something is based on faith does not make it less significant