Requiring evidence for claims isn't putting things black and white, it's standard practice in science. I notice you have not provided any such evidence btw. And that's just one of the problems of CCS, we've not even gotten to the inherent energy requirement issue that proponents like to dismiss by saying energy from renewables can be used which is free and doesn't cause emissions. But that isn't true, energy has some cost associated with it no matter where we source it from.
"I'm just asking for evidence" indeed nicely demonstrates the asymmetry of time investment. Next, if I dig into the research and adequately answer the question, the next remark is that the experiment didn't run for the full ten thousand years; you don't seem to trust today's knowledge anyhow (judging by the comment above). I'm a bit done with being the one who opens up Wikipedia or digs in hard-to-get-through papers to provide evidence in response to people who are just asking questions. You can accuse me but you've not given evidence of anything yourself. You're also putting up a false argument, claiming that proponents (that includes me) are saying it's gonna use magic free energy. I've actually looked into that before to figure out if something like Climeworks pollutes more than it captures.
Do you have any evidence that the CCS options we have today don't work? Either because it uses orders of magnitude more energy than claimed or because the carbon is released way sooner? (Heck, I'd be fine if it stores the carbon long enough to move the problem from 6 years* to 600 years so we have time to develop fusion or, failing that, fully renewable tech. Anything closer towards 6000, let alone 10'000 years, is pure profit.)
The conditional implies it's not happened yet I take it. Would people just go on the internet and write authoritatively about things they don't know and haven't even looked up?
It's by the way those who make a claim (or wish to support it) that have to provide the evidence, not the other way around. It is unlikely you'll find anyone on HN inexperienced enough in formal logic to attempt to disprove a flying teapot. So you go ahead and provide the data and demonstrate how the carbon can't come to the surface in thousands of years, which was the original claim and which so far remains completely unsubstantiated.
