proved NASA wrong

using an older paper instead of something fresh doesn't prove them wrong

I feel you're acting in bad faith.

I feel like, for as long as I don't comply, you'll place me as either too dumb to understand or as having an ulterior motive

This is why we discuss evidence and data in actual scientific debate, not what everyone says is such and so

I am skeptical of the data they present. however, I trust in the hard science I've learned myself during this conversation which contradicts the logic of these two guys' study:

more CO2 means more water vapor and clouds, but the study ignores this in its affirmations and equations. afaik, CO2 only affects global climate by less than 1C if there is no feedback.

also, the fact that they deem CO2 as a "weak gas" in itself is concerning to me, because what "weak gas" means is left to interpretation. the exact reasoning they have given to call CO2 a "weak gas" also defies logic, as I have already pointed out. this makes me doubt them even more

I could continue learning, but I see that the paper is bad enough at this point.

and even if I did continue learning, I cannot discuss some of the evidence and data presented because I don't have the means to verify it myself and I'm not going to blindly believe graphs or whatever.

if you don't want me to use consensus, then you need to give me the means to assess Earth's temperature millions of years ago before I can discuss that graph. which is not going to happen

therefore I do not have anything further to add to the conversation, so I withdraw