okay, so I'm looking at the study, and boy does it bring me anguish reading it

At today's CO2 concentration in the atmosphere of approximately 425 parts per million,additional amounts of CO2 have little ability to absorb heat and therefore is now a weak greenhouse gas.

this first premise IS THE CORNERSTONE OF THE ENTIRE STUDY...

YET, this sentence makes no logical sense. it is true that even higher amounts of CO2 have diminishing effectS - but that doesn't mean the current effect is weak, only that even higher quantities won't make the problem linearly more serious. it is weird to assume that everything is fine just because it doesn't get much worse as quickly as it could.

This also means that the common assumption that carbon dioxide is in the IPCC's words "the main driver of climate change" is scientifically false.

and therefore, this doesn't make sense either. everything else is in this chapter relies on a nonsensical sentence until we hit that graph, which applies distorted information onto it

Doubling the standard concentration of CO2 (from 400 to 800 ppm) would cause [...] less than 1° C (2° F).

this would only be true if there were no feedback effects like more water vapor and clouds, which the study itself points out as dangerous

Finally, it bears noting that CO2 is not nearly as potent a greenhouse gas as water vapor and clouds

now this was unbearable:

B. The EPA's MAGICC Model Confirms Carbon Dioxide Now and at Higher Levels is a Weak Greenhouse Gas, So Reducing It to Net Zero Will Have a Negligible Effect on Temperatures

they never explain why they are saying this!?!??? I mean... it doesn't confirm? even if they think it does, they never explain it. like what??? they're actually saying "JUST TRUST ME OKAY"

I could go on, but the whole study is based on that first premise, which is just bogus

this study is saying pretty much this:

except it explains that it's fine because adding one extra flame won't make the fire significantly worse, which renders existing flames completely harmless!