This point doesn't address warming

It is a high school lab experiment to watch CO2 absorb infrared and heat up.

There is no universe in which you can dig vast amounts of carbon, burn it, and not have things warm up. There are lots of hard questions but the fundamental fact that the globe has to warm is an unavoidable conclusion.

I'm a climate-realist turned denier. Ask me anything. Note: this isn't a matter of truth. I'm not reproaching you your conclusions but the sloppy way you reach them.

Where can I go or what can I read written by credible people (not autodidacts and conspiracy theorists from the internet) that makes the case against anthro-caused climate change, and puts the arguments in context with the pro-ACCC people?

Frankly, I don't know. Here's a lead though, with plenty of references.

https://www-wikiberal-org.translate.goog/wiki/Liste_de_scien...

My denial is tactical in nature for the mere fact I don't think being eco-friendly or a climate-skeptic changes anything in the end when it comes to CO2 emission. Going the amish way certainly does, but 1°) nobody is advocating for this 2°) it wouldn't be feasible for whole societies, they would collapse. Additionally the proposed solution to the greenhouse gas problem, namely energetic transition, is compromised by the ongoing Peak Everything [1]. It's of course not an absolute wall and people working on obscure topics such as [2] are contributing a lot more than people arguing for or against the reality of anthropogenic climate change on a political level. These people should instead focus on other issues where activism would be a lot more useful, in particular the decline in insect populations (about 75% loss in 26 years for Germany, in absolute mass, not number of species) [3]. Advocacy to get rid of neonicotinoids would be a more efficient way to combat the impeding collapse of Nature.

Finally, I don't think it's a matter of political decision: we don't have the solution to the problem of greenhouse gas and the only outcome it can have is a form of self-punishment and eco-morale. I'd prefer to die of starvation in a desertic earth than suffer this kind of hypocritical tyranny that advocates both for reduction in natality and substitution immigration to offset it.

The only form of solution I could be satisfied with is some kind of AI-driven system to figure it out, not for its supposed super-cognitive abilities, but for the methods employed in ML. In this perspective, every new scientific paper, every ecological experimentation should be logged and ageggated automatically to update some global gradient, without having to face political mediatic inertia. This would allow us to deploy solutions such as Lorenzo Furlan agricultural insurance against pesticide [4]. Of course I had to use google translate for this link. This proves my point.

[1] https://shorturl.at/IJMS1 [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/org/science/article/abs/pii/S2... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_in_insect_populations [4] https://www-pollinis-org.translate.goog/publications/lorenzo...

Yeah but your high school experiment has no feedback mechanisms, no oceans, water vapor, volcanos, solar cycles, plants, and so on. You’re also not putting in 0.04% CO2 vs 0.0395% CO2 and measuring anything meaningful because the scope and scale of the Earth’s atmosphere is unfathomably larger.

If you’ve ever owned a Fish Tank or taken High School Chemistry, you’d realize that even in the most simple environments things don’t always add up in a way that seems intuitive.