My argument here really doesn't fit into either Yes or No, but I'm posting it in Yes because that seems the more optimistic category. Man-made global warming is a minor problem at most, exaggerated by politicians, and the impacts of a warmer Earth are not all bad. In essence anthropogenic climate change is a mildly negative by-product of the Industrial Revolution, the most effective poverty reduction scheme ever created.
The argument against climate change:
1. There has been no measurable temperature increase since 1997. The average increase in global temperature every year since 1997 has been 0.05C, well within the margin of error, meaning that scientists cannot be sure if there is a real, measurable increase at all.
2. The decline in Arctic sea ice is used by many as evidence of global warming, but 2012 data from the CryoSat spacecraft showed a 50% increase in Arctic sea ice (http://www.Breitbart.Com/national-security/2013/12/17/cryosat-satellite%20-findings-arctic-ice-increase/)
3. Climate change models that predict massive temperature increases are based on unqualified assumptions about the impacts of different factors, and they have proven wrong repeatedly. Former NASA scientist Roy Spencer analysed 90 recent climate models and found that 95% had exaggerated the warming trend.
4. Believers in climate change often argue that temperatures are the highest 'since records began', but the truth is, accurate meteorological records only began in the mid C20th. Earlier data is based on analysing ice cores, a notoriously unreliable method.
5. So, given all this evidence, why is there such a consensus among scientists that global warming is man-made and a severe problem? Simply put, most climate scientists are involved in researching the effects commonly ascribed to global warming, such as extinctions of animals and sea level rises. These things are happening - but the evidence to suggest man-made global warming is the cause is very weak, and distracts from real solutions to solve these problems by adapting to situations. It is worth noting, however, that the consensus is far from overwhelming - over 31000 scientists have signed a petition at http://www.petitionproject.org expressing doubt about man-made climate change, and these scientists include top atmospheric physicists such as Richard Lindzen. Besides, scientific issues are not decided by a consensus, they are decided by the truth. In the time of Galileo the consensus was that the Sun went round the Earth, but that didn't make it right!
Anyone interested in this should read An Appeal to Reason by the former UK Chancellor Nigel Lawson, a succinct and readable summary of the case against man-made climate change. We are not 'deniers' or conspiracy theorists who ignore the evidence, and most of us do not even argue that man does not bear part of the responsibility of that climate change is not happening at all. We simply believe the current consensus is misleading and suggests the science is much more clear-cut, and the problem is much worse, than the actual evidence shows.
We can all take responsibility for reducing our carbon footprints and conservation. Scientists may find ways to help slow global warming, but it sounds like in order to reverse the process, they'd be looking at some risky measures. For example, artificially cooling the planet might work if we spray particles that block sunlight and reduce heat, or if we remove some of the CO2, but the consequences are unknown.
There are currently a number of races being conducted by researchers around the globe including finding the cheapest way to make useful things including plastics and fuel by extracting CO2 from the atmosphere. It can already be done at competitive prices, but nobody is willing to invest heavily in the technology until certain it will be the most economical. Within ten or twenty years at most we should the first really large installations, while its already possible for anyone to produce fuel out of air using a shoe box sized device and sunlight.
The more serious issue is how much damage have we already done and how much more damage will people do before getting a grip on reality. The academics keep complaining low brow humor and high tech just don't mix, while they teach anybody with enough money exactly how to destroy the planet for fun and profit.
There has been much talk about this issue at hand, and the plain truth is that you cannot reverse the effects of the Earth warming up. What you can do, though, is significantly slow down the process by doing things such as carpooling or taking local transport, which cuts back on CO2 emissions. There have been many scary theories, too, as to what will happen if the Earth continues to warm up like this; one theory suggests that because icebergs are melting because of global warming, ocean levels will rise. Eventually, this elevated ocean level will completely engulf cities near the coastline (such as NYC) and everyone is going to move to Texas (that's not a joke). So basically, we can't reverse the effects of the Earth warming but we can slow it down. Unless scientists develop a time machine sometime in the future and go back in time to reverse the effects of global warming. That would have unprecedented consequences, though, making it unlikely that scientists will time travel.
The exact causes of global warming are still debatable among scientist. Much of what has contributed to global warming has to do with the increasing population of humans. Until the population begins reversing in number, there is little that will be done to change those factors. Scientist research and report. They do not pass laws.
Sooner or later, the free market is going to solve this global warming problem through the innovation of clean fuel. The government should get out of the way and stop trying to subsidize fossil fuels so the research can proceed more quickly. Once consumers have superior options, they will naturally choose the more energy efficient products.
No, scientists can't reverse potential global warming. If the warming is indeed caused by humans, it is primarily a matter of shutting down fossil fuel use in the world. Any "miracle device" would be a moot point if the root cause remains in effect, like a bucket with a hole in the bottom won't get fixed by pouring in more water.