>If you're asking for references that CO2 absorbs and radiates IR radiation, I imagine you'd have to look to a textbook or papers from the early 20th century. That's established fact.

Hmm... the "established facts" for thousands of years in textbooks and everywhere was that the earth is flat. I guess I should believe in that too. Anyways, I will link you to an article which argues that CO2 acts as a coolant: http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

So, Given that plants grow better at higher CO2 concentrations (as experienced by indoor growers https://university.upstartfarmers.com/blog/why-and-how-to-su...), it seems like it is good to try increase CO2 concentrations higher and see if we can achieve the desired cooling effect while we are at it. Meanwhile, we will also be solving world hunger, preventing deaths due to unclean water, freeing up time used by people of poorer countries in farming, processing food, washing etc. using industrial machines and letting them enjoy the same standard of living as the western countries... all of this can be done by letting them use fossil fuels... taking the taxes and international restrictions away from the industry.

> http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/sci....

I read the article and it seems to be posted on a site for "Union of Concerned Scientists", which it seems is an advocacy group for what they think is "scientific". I think that is a very closed minded way to view science but let's examine their claims:

>CO2 has caused most of the warming and its influence is expected to continue

To back this up, they link this IPCC page: https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ and I finally found the report after some time: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Cha..., they could have linked to the report directly, but OK.

Anyways, in the report, they compare various chemicals and how much heat they trap. What they don't compare is how much heat 280 ppm of CO2 captures vs how much 1500 would capture. My guess is not much because a 40% rise in CO2 changed the average temperature by a couple of degrees in the last few hundred years. So, it seems like the relation is either very weak or that there is no relation at all. It can't be that hard to create two greenhouses next to each other, fill them with different levels of CO2 and note the difference and it is very surprising that nobody has done it... but given how modern science works, what is much more likely is that the experiment didn't come in their favor and hence it was never published.

>that most research is wrong

I am not the one claiming that. There have been multiple studies in the fast few years which have shown that most modern scientific publications don't hold up on peer review... and most scientists don't spend their time on peer review. It seems that it is not in their interest to review a study that someone else published. Making new and extraordinary claims with doctored data seems to get all the attention from journalists (and hence more funding), so that is all everyone seems to be interested in doing.

>The great deal of evidence supporting human-caused climate change, and the lack of robust evidence of the contrary, should reasonably lead one to the conclusion that it is a real phenomenon.

100% of Nazi scientists believed that Jews were an inferior race. Maybe scientists are biased by politics of the countries they work in, among other things? Can you name one other "scientific fact" that has not been politicized but still "settled"? Let me help you: it doesn't exist. Science doesn't "settle". It's always open to enquiry and new evidence can always change it.