climate change

Precisely

OK lets cut to the chase then and set aside all your usual house dancing, sarcasm, belittling, dismissiveness etc and get to the point. The above is your agenda and this is where you are trying to get to.

What we have here is relatively simple goal and there is no need for you to try and deny the the realities of climate change over time to justify this viewpoint and objective. I would think most people would be more readily swayed by the argument its good practice to leave things the way you found them, tidy up before you leave etc etc.

CO2 seems to be the obsession so lets start there.
Lets draw a line in the sand and call it quits at modern humans who appeared roughly 250,000 years ago.

The start point then, needs to be getting some very good historians, scientists and computer modelling experts together. The aim is to build a model which calculates the amount of carbon that would have been released into the atmosphere had humans never existed and the amount of carbon that has been released over the last 250,000 years.

The model of how much carbon released into the atmosphere had humans never existed would also need to be projected forward for the next 100 years.

This will be a very complex piece of work, particularly the 'never existed' model. It is going to have to be able to model with a reasonable degree of probability what might have been released if for example, humans hadn't impacted erosion by landscaping their environment for farming, hadn't deforested large swathes of land. controlled large scale forest fires. Would their have been massive forest fires across the americas etc, would oil near and on the surface have burned and released CO2 and would that have caused deeoer reserves to be drawn up and burn too. Humans have managed erosion on large scales - would more carbon have been released if humans had never discovered and tried to prevent longshore drift. lots and lots of very clever predictive modelling.

I've never encountered a piece of work that has attempted to consider/ do this. It would be very interesting to see how much atmospheric CO2 that on the face of it is down to humans but where humans are in reality middlemen that have controlled for their benefit, what would have been released anyway, as well as what humans have inadvertently caused not to be released.

This should put humanity in a position where there is a net atmospheric CO2 figure that needs to be scrubbed from the atmosphere (or maybe shock horror added). It will also provide a net figure of what needs to be scrubbed or added for each year over the next 100 years by deducting what the 'never existed model' from the actual amount of CO2 humans go on to release each year.

When armed with this data the next step is to work out how to scrub the excess CO2 from the last 250,000 years. This could be tackled in a number of ways. An epic tree planting campaign to lock away carbon coupled with rolling out atmospheric scrubbers would probably be a good starting point.

Once the figure for the retroactive contribution is known it will be much easier to flesh out what is needed and what a realistic timescale is for completing that part of the mission.

As for the forward work. once that net annual figure starts to become apparent, it would be a lot easier to strike a balance between annual output reduction and corrective measures to achieve true net zero. The other positive here is that true net zero is likely to be less than what we think of as net zero now since it would be taking into account what would have been released anyway unlike the current approach.

surely out of the same plug socket as you are expecting to get your power from windmills?

I will not address this until I get an answer to my question on what you mean by relatively rapid. And how this compares to changes we are now seeing. 
I see why you keep avoiding this, as you continue to avoid answering so will others, even those who wish you to be right. 

There are two strong supports for the idea that man is causing the current global warming. 

1, The rate of change. 
This is far faster than any natural change we have seen

2, The lack of any other perceivable cause.
There have been many changes in earths climate since the arrival on man, but in each case science has been able to point to the probable cause. Today science has done the same only with the extra ability to measure things in real time rather than by looking at historical data. 

To date I have not seen either of these supports seriously challenged. Colbops on this thread claims previous events have been relatively quick but refuses to give any time scales or examples. This I have also seen previously

The attack on the second support consists of listing endless possible other causes, but again without any evidence to support those causes. 
Beyond that the argument is that its all made up and somehow nearly all the scientists from every country and political background have come together to create a giant conspiracy in order to secure future funding.

The rate of change is unable to be compared to past events as we do not have clear data on how fast those changes occurred apart from major catastrophes. The measurement of change is a whole subject on its own with stations set up in the US to be definitive points well clear of man made heat islands have seen no temperature increase in the 20 years they have been measuring. So a zero rate of change there in two decades. No increase in storms, no increase in climate disasters of any form.