Engineering360: "Pieces to Environmental Puzzle Begin to Come Together"

Who exactly has scientifically proven beyond doubt that CO2 is factually harmful in the atmosphere?

That weak and unsubstantiatable opening statement made me not want to take the whole article serious..

Especially given that without CO2 in the atmosphere we humans would die of starvation since all primary life supporting plant life on those planet would die without it.

And in addition they should by now know that it will always take energy to transform CO2 into something with more energy content. Most off the time more than what is recoverable afterwards.

The idea behind this is the portability and convenience of liquid fuel-- the creation of which is powered by free fuel...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUKolh8Q9hA

Try this!

You've heard of The American Institute of Physics and NASA, yeah?

http://history.aip.org/climate/simple.htm

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Actually your two references show the problem/bias that comes from over simplification of complex, and so far, not well understood systems of extreme dynamic complexity and using both inconclusive, incomplete, disproven or just wrong/made up data sets to make a point based on 'potential for' not 'proof of'.

That and picking highly selective reference data as proof while ignoring the much larger and more in depth sets that show that there is far more question and uncertainty than what you have chosen to represent your claims implies.

Also your NASA link has this,

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."

In its statement.

A now extremely well known and well debunked claim that everyone who follows the real science of climate study knows is pure leftist BS and that whenever it's seen the data it's supposed to reinforce is also almost always guaranteed to be of and for and as equally misrepresented leftist pseudo science AGW agenda based BS claim as well.

Fake/biased science backed up by fake/biased claims or bad science backed up by already disproven data and claims is not credible let alone proof of anything but that the person who is still believing it needs to do far more unbiased research and study regarding the reality of what it is they are interested in proving or disproving.

Co2 Vs planetary temperature correlations. (They are not what's being claimed.)

Planet becoming greener from CO2. (NASA)

A year of planetary atmospheric CO2 variations animation. (NASA)

Long term natural cycles. (Milankovitch cycles.)

Something unusual has been happening with the sun for the last century or longer

Atmospheric physicists do not agree with mainstream political views.

"97% of scientists" claim is BS and here why. (Misrepresented context in claim)

The reality is it's a huge and complex systems with a huge number of inputs and influences and we are not a significant player for the reasons too many what to portray us as.