Throwing opaque/reflective particles on the atmosphere would immediately stop global warming but would almost surely have massive unintended consequences. We could still do it and it wouldn't even be that expensive.>>10627768
Scientists are not very good at communicating their findings, even to other scientists. Because of this often times, especially between different unrelated areas, things must be taken as fact just because they are science, when in reality most engineers would probably find the average psychology work unpublishable and vice versa.
In topics where you demand a massive change in lifestyle from people, research should be the most clearly communicated and most accurate possible, but sadly often times these topics are exactly the most complex ones involving hard to predict systems like climate, human bodies or nutrition. These are also areas where misuse of statistics generates plausible results that are very hard to check until mistakes become apparent only much later on. Thus it is hardly surprising vaccines, climate change, eggs being good or not for your heart, etc, are always highly debated topics especially outside of academia.
Remember that the first medical researcher who proposed washing hands might be a good idea before surgery died in a mental institution because the vast majority of European experts was in agreement that diseases were not transmitted by germs, but instead by "bad air", and hand washing had nothing to do with it. Were they stupid? Probably not, they probably thought they were using evidence in their favor and also had a strong bias towards defending that position, besides just the basic human pride of not wanting to admit you're wrong.
But the minute you disregard someone's opinions entirely and stop trying to refute them in a clear objective way, you're not being a wise scientist, you're just part of the problem.