Climate change being real but getting the real reason wrong because of hubris, and doing measures that only harm and economy and makes us more fragile ahead of dealing with the crisis, and in the process destroying any public trust in science that will be required for dealing with the crisis.
Almost like doing lockdowns for coronavirus.
Temperature measurements and real world data and trends is not something I can deny. But there's important difference between climate change is from CO2 and greenhouse gas, to any other possible explanation.
Just like there's a difference between "inflation is transitory because of supply chain problems" to the dumpster fire we're having today.
I've had enough of this hubris. How is it that nobody is preparing for the impacts of climate change? How is everyone so confident that somehow whatever measures are done will be enough, and that everyone will actually implement them?
Adaptation is clearly the only viable solution because that's the only thing that's independent of the competence of things you don't control.
*(Technically, since thermal radiation goes as T^4 times emissivity and some other stuff, what I really mean is a higher value of T^4 averaged across the surface area of the Earth and weighted by emissivity. And even this is an oversimplification, since not only can heat be lost from the ground, but also the atmosphere iteself. But the basic picture of "planet gets warmer" is still correct.)
First of all, the radiation is thermal radiation. Air with CO2 at close temperature to the surface emitting thermal radiation has no bad effect whatsoever on how fast the energy radiates out.
Two things at the same temperature will always be at equilibrium, and the least thermal radiation you can emit is black body radiation like the surface. So the narrative of looking at it like it's radiation scattering might be true for high up in the atmosphere where the temperature difference from the surface is high - but very misleading and leads to bad intuition in low attitudes. CO2 also tends to stay in lower attitudes.
There are other effects from CO2 that also go the other way. CO2 has increased heat capacity, it's heavier than air, and it might have a cooling effect because it increases the effectiveness of convection.
What's the leading cause? By how much? I don't know. You need to do the calculation properly and find out. This is physics not humanistic subject. You don't judge with narratives. Narratives are misleading, calculations are what matters. If you bring your narrative to the calculation and the only effect of CO2 in your calculation is the radiation, that's even worse.
Thermodynamic systems also tend to reach equilibrium, so if you have errors in any parameters in the description of the system, your errornous system with the current state of the real system will be out of equilibrium in the errornous simulation. You should always expect simulations with imprecise data to be less stable than the real system itself.