I appreciate you making direct statements disputing the paper, because it enables me to understand your objections so that I can consider them. The specific issue you have seems to be the characterization of CO2 as a 'weak' GHG, not with the ~30 watts/m^2 CO2 actually prevents from being emitted. You ignore the actual quantification of the greenhouse effect exerted by different gases, and decry the particular word used to refer to the reduced ability of CO2 to exert the greenhouse effect after reaching it's saturation point. Lindzen and Happer point out that ~90% of the greenhouse effect is from water vapor and that effect is vital to Earth's habitability (which you characterize as dangerous rather than utterly essential to life itself). If 90% of work is done by one thing, and 10% of work by several others, clearly one has strong effect and the others weak, but you completely reject that evidence.
"...everything else is in this chapter relies on a nonsensical sentence until we hit that graph, which applies distorted information onto it"
You yourself point out that CO2 reaches saturation, and then has reduced effect as a greenhouse gas - but you characterize their calculation of that effect as 'nonsensical', and then claim they use 'distorted information'. What calculation should be used to correctly gauge the post-saturation level of greenhouse effect by CO2? What is your source for these claims?
"now this was unbearable:
"B. The EPA's MAGICC Model Confirms Carbon Dioxide Now and at Higher Levels is a Weak Greenhouse Gas, So Reducing It to Net Zero Will Have a Negligible Effect on Temperatures
"they never explain why they are saying this!?!??? I mean... it doesn't confirm? even if they think it does, they never explain it."
The very next paragraphs state:
"The Environmental Protection Agency uses the Model for Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change (MAGICC), as does the IPCC, many government agencies and climate policy analysts to predict temperatures and sea level rise from the level of CO2 and other GHGs in the atmosphere.
"The MAGICC model confirms that the U.S. achieving Net Zero CO2 and other GHG
emissions to Net Zero by 2100 would cause negligible changes in Earth's surface temperature. Reducing them to Net Zero would reduce global temperatures by less than 1° C (1.8°F) by 2100."
This is indeed confirmation by this model that Net Zero by 2050 (or even 2100) will not avert a climate catastrophe, because <1 degree Celsius is not a catastrophic 'global boiling'. This MAGICC model is used by the IPCC itself and it does not support their claims of catastrophic global warming from CO2 impending.
"Doubling the standard concentration of CO2 (from 400 to 800 ppm) would cause [...] less than 1° C (2° F)."
To which you reply:
"this would only be true if there were no feedback effects like more water vapor and clouds..."
You attempt to refute the statement regarding the inability of CO2 at saturation to substantially exert more greenhouse effect by stating that water vapor and clouds will instead, that they will be somehow caused by increased CO2. No one has ever asserted evidence of that to my knowledge, certainly it isn't mentioned in the paper, and you offer no mechanism by which CO2 might somehow increase water vapor and clouds. What is this 'feedback effect' of increasing CO2 that causes more water vapor and clouds?
"...adding one extra flame won't make the fire significantly worse, which renders existing flames completely harmless!"
You are certainly aware that is a false characterization, because I've cited the actual numbers the authors provided several times. The titular image for my post, taken from the linked paper, shows that CO2 reduces radiation by ~30w/m^2, at specific frequencies, which isn't of null effect at all. It is what makes life possible on Earth, and, as the authors point out, more of it will increase the fecundity of life on Earth, as it has at 10x - 20x times the CO2 levels in the atmosphere today. The fact that CO2 reaches saturation doesn't cause CO2 to stop exerting it's greenhouse effect. It just doesn't exert more of it. When you are dissolving something, like salt or sugar, into water, it dissolves fine until it reaches saturation. Then no more of it will dissolve into the water, and it just accumulates as a slurry. It doesn't slow down or reduce the percentage being dissolved. Neither does it eject all the solute from solution. Just so CO2 absorbs heat at certain frequencies, until it reaches saturation in the atmosphere, and then it can't absorb anymore. It still feeds plants though, which is why greenhouse growers use it to increase the productivity of their operations.
IMG source - Lindzen and Happer (2025)
There seems to be nothing behind your dissension but desperation to justify your faith in AGW. You intend to remain amongst the faithful in your AGW religion, and no heretical facts or evidence will cause you to renounce your faith. That is my takeaway of your refutation of my post, and Lindzen and Happer's paper.
Thanks!
RE: Physics Disproves Anthropogenic Global Warming Scam