I obtained a translated version of your article with a title: CO2 can not cause climate change (this title is translated from Dutch, which is a translated title out of English.). I believe that the basis of your article e.g. that the CO2 is heated and then transfers heat tot the surface of the earth is not correct.
The CO2 acts like a radiation screen. This screen heats up with the result that the earth radiates to a warmer surface than without a radiation screen. In order to loose enough heat the earth has to have a higher temperature.
In your vision a radiation screen can not function in vacuum. We know that it does function in vacuum.
I believe that the alarmists estimate the influence of CO2 being too high, but the basis of their theory is correct.
Hans Haarman,
haarmanhans3@gmail.com
Climate change (in the current popular sense) is an example of science turning 180 degrees and becoming the opposite of what it originally intended to be. ‘Correct’ climate ‘science’ is now a cult religion that demands strict obedience. None shall question it.
https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/
Yes that article was a little too simplistic. I no longer bother with debating or discussing whether the world is warming or what the cause is, as the warming lies well within natural variations. The real question is this – if the world is warming (regardless of the reason) why is that a bad thing?
I’ve asked that question of hundreds of people but have yet to receive a reply