Thank you for your comments Andrew. I don’t believe i’m saying ‘if you don’t agree with my figures, etc’. It’s more that if you don’t acknowledge the extensive, multi-decade effort of thousands of scientists to paint a clear picture of what we know (and don’t) and the associated risks, then you are in fact denying science. If you then avoid what the implications of that science and risk calculations mean for how we might proceed, then you’re denying the need for action.
On one specific thing you say, though, I need to comment. You say “I never see any figures on the carbon debt…”. It’s this kind of sentiment that can be very frustrating. If you Google something like “lifecycle carbon payback on solar” you will be inundated with studies on this question. Here’s one that popped up that analyses a dozen or more studies on the question (their answer is 1–3 year payback for most solar technologies).
To be blunt, I ask that you look for some of the answers you seek before saying ‘they don’t exist’ or ‘i haven’t seen them.’ Academics, policy think tanks, NGOs, governments, and scientific bodies have been asking and answering many questions like this for many years.