Your math doesn't even assume equilibrium, as that is irrelevant. At most, it might be assuming small-signal changes, which in some circumstances do allow you to linearize things to a limited degree (depending on where you are on the curve).
It has most decidedly not already happened. There was a relatively small handful of "scientists", and a few more papers published by that handful. Far more papers written by other scientists were suppressed by that handful and their cronies (as admitted in their emails). There is darn good reason to not accept their results, whether they be right or wrong.So in summary, how can I disagree with your statement that "we don't know"? It would take 1000s of scientists and papers, with tens of years of effort to hone the wheat from the chaff and reach solid conclusions, to reah any conclusions.... (Oh, I forgot, that has happenned, but you don't accept the results).
It does not take 1000s of papers and scientists to do anything. It can take just one paper that survives the tests of sufficient scientists that others are satisfied. The above handful of scientists did not allow that to happen.
You talk about "the scientifically illiterate public". In my mind, being scientifically illiterate does not mean that one's knowledge is lacking, but rather one's understanding of the scientific process is deficient.
The scientific method is about publishing one's work (all of it: hypothesis, data, models, processes, results, and probably some other's I've forgotten) to allow others to reproduce one's work. If one's work is good, it will stand on its own: no need to suppress papers or attack people's characters. Bad papers will have other papers demonstrating the faults of the bad papers. Good papers will have other papers showing confirmation.
