Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I gave the reference to its absorption spectrum. From that, it causes some warming. And that is "very basic and confirmed physics". But that alone is, for practice, meaningless. Instead, the crucial question is, how much CO2 causes how much warming. Dozens of studies were done. No doubt the work of Arrhenius was considered.

I gave the famous reference to the results of the studies.

And the blunt fact is, all the studies, from Arrhenius and everything else, that predicted significant warming were wrong, badly wrong, because the times of the predicted warming came and went years ago with no evidence of the predicted warming or any significant warming at all.

And now we do have significantly more CO2, and still we see no significant warming.

Net, CO2 really is a greenhouse gas and really does cause warming, and that fact really is "very basic and confirmed physics", but the warming it causes is trivial, too small to be measured.

In particular, from Arrhenius, where is the "hockey stick", where is the warming? From 1945 to 1970, as CO2 was increasing, there was significant cooling. And since 1970, with more CO2, still there is no credible evidence of significant warming.

And as I explained in detail, the empirical evidence doesn't support that CO2 causes warming.

So, the (1) theory didn't work. And (2) the empirical data back 800,000 years doesn't support that CO2 causes warming. So, (1) and (2) both fail. Now the alarmists are left with no evidence, none, zero.

Well, there is an explanation for the studies that failed. See "The truth about global warming" with Patrick Michaels
at

https://www.foxnews.com/transcript/dr-patrick-michaels-on-th...

In short the explanation is: The studies that predicted warming were working with climate models. They didn't have enough data so put in some adjustable parameters. Then they assumed that the warming in the early 1900s was caused by CO2 and adjusted their parameters to fit that early 1900s temperature data. Then they applied their resulting model to more recent levels of CO2. From that, they got predictions of significant warming. But those predictions failed -- the times of the predicted warming came and went years ago with no credible evidence of significant warming. E.g., the West Side Highway in NYC is still high and dry.

Of course, a big flaw was their assumption that the temperature changes of the early 1900s were caused by CO2 changes.

But by now from (1) and (2), we know better, know that the warming caused by CO2 is trivial, too small to be measured. In particular, the warming of the early 1900s was not caused by CO2. The likely cause was pulling out of the Little Ice Age.

Whatever, we have two rock solid points, (1) the models fail and (2) the empirical data doesn't support CO2 warming.

So, we are left with no credible evidence that human sources of CO2 have caused, are causing, or will cause significant warming. Indeed the evidence from the cooling of 1945 to 1970 and the current higher concentration of CO2 without significant warming is that the warming of CO2 is trivial, too small to be measured. So, there's no "climate crisis".

But plenty of people know this.

But we still have people screaming about the climate crisis. For them, the science is just an excuse. For them, they are not afraid of the warming. Instead, from the hoax, scam of the climate crisis, they are making money.

Soon the climate crisis will be over, will go the way of the ozone hole, low flow plumbing, and the hula hoop. People will give up on the climate crisis not because of science such as I am explaining but because of the reason for the screaming about the climate crisis -- nothing to do with science but just a way to make money. So, people are noticing how much the climate crisis is costing them and will stop the nonsense based on those costs.

Electric vehicles (EVs)? The batteries are too expensive, don't last very long, are too expensive to replace, present one heck of a fire hazard, take too long to charge, and need more electric power than the electric grid can supply. The EVs have many fewer moving parts so have some potential of being much cheaper than gasoline powered internal combustion engines but in practice so far are more expensive, not less. As the climate crisis fad fades, the subsidies for EVs will fade. Musk stands to lose a bundle.