What the research does do is give us a tool when, and if, the climate doomsayers are proven correct, using good science. I don't believe good science has been down across the board, there is too much "green" involved in the form of money for my taste.
I don't disagree with the need to develop methods to control climate change. I disagree with the methods that have been proposed to date to accomplish that control. Or good, effective ways to bypass the need for control.
Everything in moderation, until you can show a smoking gun.
Sorry I don't have a citation for this, but new growth forests consume carbon dioxide at a far faster rate than old growth forests. If you want to take carbon out of the atmosphere, the best thing might be to clear cut old growth forests, bury the wood somewhere it won't rot and plant new forests.
This sounds similar to the idea of replacing gasoline engines with a fuel cell which converted aluminum to aluminum oxide. When consumed, the aluminum oxide could be refined back to pure aluminum for reuse. The only problem is that the primary method of refining aluminum involves sticking a pure carbon rod into molten aluminum oxide and running an electric current through it converting the carbon rod into carbon dioxide -- just what the inventor was claiming that it would reduce.