UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

This is the argument against your claim:

There's no correlation between CO2 and temperature
Twentieth century global warming did not start until 1910. By that time CO2 emissions had already risen from the expanded use of coal that had powered the industrial revolution, and emissions only increased slowly from 3.5gigatonnes in 1910 to under 4gigatonnes by the end of the Second World War.
It was the post war industrialization that caused the rapid rise in global CO2 emissions, but by 1945 when this began, the Earth was already in a cooling phase that started around 1942 and continued until 1975. With 32 years of rapidly increasing global temperatures and only a minor increase in global CO2 emissions, followed by 33 years of slowly cooling global temperatures with rapid increases in global CO2 emissions, it was deceitful for the IPCC to make any claim that CO2 emissions were primarily responsible for observed 20th century global warming.

CO2 levels are demonstrably higher, due primarily to deforestation and carbon emissions add to this. But the link to global temperature has not been made. Is this ecologically good or neutral? I doubt it. But is there scientific evidence of the anthropogenic causality of global climate change? Not that I have seen. Certainly not enough to enact the massive changes that the Paris Accords espouse.

But even if this issue is clearly resolved, then there’s the issue of whether the changes would actually affect the climate significantly. No China and India to start. Countries allowed to buy other countries carbon credits. Dictators being given money to use for green energy production with no way to enforce its proper use, etc.

Let’s all agree to first attack the problem that does not require a new liberal world order…..deforestation.