Facts that have never been refuted are:
1. CO2 at this time, at these levels, is not in control of climate and
2. We are not in control of CO2.
We produce around 4% of the annual contribution to the atmosphere. Notable:1929-1931, and 2020 - when Arizona State University climate scientist Randall Cerveny, unaware of 1929-1931, expressed his disappointment that "We had had some hopes that, with last year's COVID scenario, perhaps the lack of travel and the lack of industry [~10% drop in output] might act as a little bit of a brake. But what we're seeing is, frankly, it has not.")
The 1929-1931 30% drop in human output did not alter the languid rise of CO2 in the slightest. WWII and postwar reconstruction did not alter the rise of CO2 and was associated with a slight decrease in global temperature.
Nor is there any evidence in history, as in the last million years we have had 8 glaciations and 8 interglacials including this current, none of them preceded by a CO2 change. Indeed, in the last 550 million years, there has never been a temperature reversal preceded by a CO2 change.
And then on the academic side, there is the exponential decline of CO2 GHG effect first noted by Arrhenius (50% of its GHG effect in the first 20 ppm), and the math is now correct - see MODTRAN at U of Chicago. Modern calculations suggest that the next doubling to 800 ppm will increase its GHG effect by less than 2%. Meanwhile, the beneficial effect of CO2 on plant life is linear, and has been credited with at least 30% of the increase in agriculture since 1950. Plants grow bigger and faster and are more drought resistant. USN submarines do not take anti-CO2 measures until it reaches 8,000 ppm. CO2 is consumed in vast quantities by algae and plankton in our Oceans - these micro-organisms feed the small shrimp and krill that sustain the baitfish, who in turn are prey for the larger ocean predators that feed us.
Consider the actual toxic pollution associated with lithium and rare earth mining, processing, and disposal; the land use of solar panels and wind turbines; the raptors and bats killed by turbines; the catastrophes that could ensue with hydrogen power production; the fragility of these systems and susceptibility to hackers and sabotage not to mention terrorists and wars.
Nuclear power seems like a much more desirable alternative, if indeed one is desired.
