You know Brent discrediting everyone who doesn't agree with your point of view only works with millennials. It doesn't hold up well with us older guys. You have failed to name a scientist who supports your point of view as does everyone else who sides with you. Those scientists always tend to remain unnamed. Furthermore you've failed to say how their facts are flawed. Such as the lag time in CO2 levels with previous warming periods. As pointed out in that video the lag time was always about 800 years. 800 years lag time is conclusive proof that the temperature rise was independent from any effects of CO2 and CO2 may have not played any role in temperature whatsoever during those periods. I know exactly how science works and there has never been any proof that CO2 affects climate. While we are able to tell what CO2 levels have been in the past what we don't know is whether they affected climate. We think they can but only in great enough quantity. Dyson said that too and I have no idea what you've read that makes you think he supported ACC. Everything I've seen from him said the opposite. He said CO2 is a greenhouse gas not that it has now or ever affected climate. It may be capable of it. As someone who trained in physics I can tell with certainty that in order for you to predict an outcome you have to have a good data set. That doesn't exist. We have some weather measurements that go back 150 or so years and before that it was observational information about hot or cold, wet or drought, and ice or ice free. There were no measurements of all the various possible factors which include cosmic rays.
In that video and in other media I've seen the consensus was that water vapour played the major role in warming. This is easily observable. If it clears off at night this time of year here the night will be cold. Cloudy and it won't be. The water vapour in the clouds is what is holding the heat in.
You said that my black body/white body example was flawed. How? It dealt specifically with the mechanics of how the CO2 molecule is supposed to affect climate, i.e. by bouncing the radiation back down to the ground again. The only way it was flawed is that it was a 2 dimensional representation of the problem when it is actually 3 dimensional. In a 3 dimensional setting if the radiation strikes near the edge of the molecule it will ricochet off at an angle, possibly still into outer space. So where my example assumed 100% reflection the real scenario won't possibly achieve 100%. If you disagree with that then quit spouting talking points and actually share some of your brilliance with us.
As I said, discrediting everyone who disagrees with you only works for a very short time. Dr. Judith Curry has 140 scientific papers to her name and has taught at several prestigious universities including Georgia Tech. She sounds like someone who should be listened to. Here is a small part of Tony Heller's bio.
BS Geology, Arizona State University
Masters Electrical Engineering, Rice University
Boston University Geology
Northern Arizona University Computer Science
Colorado State University Computer Science
University of New Mexico Geochemistry
I testified at my first Congressional hearing in support of Wilderness in 1972.
I fought for the Clean Air and Water acts
Wilderness Ranger Cibola National Forest, New Mexico
Wilderness Ranger Santa Fe National Forest, New Mexico
Currently battling the City of Boulder, Colorado to stop development on the South Boulder Wetlands
Full time cyclist for all my local transportation, for the past 40 years
Doesn't exactly sound like someone who would be a shill for oil companies does he? His credentials and accomplishments are far too lengthy to post here but here's a link to the rest: https://realclimatescience.com/who-is-tony-heller/
Once again, he seems the kind of person you would want to pay attention to unlike the 2500 unnamed scientists. BTW, is 2500 all the pro side can come up with? That's a pittance.
If you want to talk conspiracy theories then let's talk about the Canadian government turfing out 100 years of actual measured data and replacing it with calculated data. The ONLY reason they would do that is that the actual data doesn't support their agenda. Couple that with the Spencer Fernando video of Katherine McKenna, our environment minister, admitting that she is lying about it and you have a smoking gun, not a conspiracy theory. And what about El Niņo and La Niņa? Thirty years ago that was all you heard about. If there was going to be an El Niņo then California could expect hot dry weather and brush fires. Wonder why you haven't heard anything about them lately? It's because the ocean affecting weather that much destroys the CO2 debate. Tony Heller's presentation to the Washington State Senate shows how NASA has changed the weather data every few years since about 2000. There are some conspiracies for you Brent.