Decisions made based on science are more effective than those based on politics in almost 100% of cases. Especially when the subject of those decisions itself is science (the climate).

I wouldn't argue that all scientists are selfless that would be silly. I would argue that the average scientist is less selfish than the average politician, yes.

Examine the motivations. Few people go into pure science seeking power or money. Most or all politicians do.

That brings us back to the original question: does the science tell us what to do? Or is it your contention that the scientists tell us what to do, and whatever scientists say about a decision is presumably the right way to make decisions based on science?

It is reasonable to ask "how should the science guide our actions?" I'm open to suggestions on the subject.

It is not reasonable to ask IF the science should guide our actions. They only alternative is madness.

On that question, here is an article I found helpful:

https://worksinprogress.co/issue/sunscreen-for-the-planet/

If there is scientific consensus that this is worth trying, and that the risk/reward ratio works out then I'm in favor of it.

Right now though, my own limited guess would be that the risk/reward doesn't justify it. The climate is a chaotic system which exemplifies the concept of sensitive dependence upon initial conditions. We could easily kill millions or even billions of people with a little "whoopsie". It might be better to wait until the alternative is worse than that potential cost.

I would, of course, defer to a consensus of experts on the subject if such a thing exists. I am not one.