Wow. That's an impressive amount of wrong things.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas like paint is a colorful coloring - after the first coat adding extra makes no real difference.

There is something funny about the line "There's too much CO2 in the atmosphere to make any more difference" when other climate science deniers in this thread are arguing "CO2 is not prevalent enough, nor will it ever be enough to be a driver of the temperature due to greenhouse gas effect."

You're both wrong of course. The climate sensitivity to CO2 is about 3°C, and has been between 1.5 and 6.2 °C for 420 million years. So it's over a very robust range of CO2 concentrations that doubling or halving the concentration makes a significant difference to the climate.

CO2 has NEVER been shown to raise temperatures. Ever.

This is a new one. "The greenhouse effect doesn't work for CO2". If the earth wasn't subject to CO2 greenhouse effect, you get a snowball earth, with a mean surface temperature of -21°C.

It has always been seen to raise AFTER the temps go up,

See how temperatures bottomed out in about 1910, but CO2 was already increasing by 1880? https://www.globalchange.gov/browse/multimedia/global-temperature-and-carbon-dioxide

Guess you're wrong then.

Climategate back in 2009 proved beyond doubt the 'scientists' were lying, fucking with the figures, hiding data, and in their own words, their models and computer code were "dogshit".

You've been drinking the cool aid a bit on that one, Bigs. There were a lot of quotes taken out of context in the denialosphere, but correctly understood, it showed good work being done by dedicated people.

Forth point, the entire scam depends on those dogshit computer models,

No it doesn't. There's lots of independent estimates of climate sensitivity to CO2.

https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.1203513

https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/15/22/1520-0442_2002_015_3117_aobeot_2.0.co_2.xml

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2004JD005557

and those models declared a 'hot spot' above the tropics, would would be the absolute proof of the hypothesis,

The "hot spot" above the tropics is due to a warmer ocean. It has nothing to do with CO2. A warm ocean makes the bottom of the atmosphere warmer, and that warmth is magnified above because the extra water in the atmosphere makes the rate of cooling with increasing height (the lapse rate) slower. This is due to both water having a high specific heat, and water condensing into clouds and releasing the latent heat of vaporisation back to the atmosphere at that height.

I bet you believe the covid19 vaccines are safe and effective too?

They're much safer than getting CoVID, and effective at reducing hospitalisations and deaths.

I bet you think a surgical mask will stop a virus too?

They reduce transmission. If you wear them.

Because big, well-connected orgs that stand to make fortunes and inflict ever more power and control over people never, ever lie through their fucking teeth and take you for a schmuck, huh?

What, big solar power is funding enough scientists to produce half a million scholarly papers in the past decade?

You realise that unlike fossil fuels, no one owns sunshine? The only ones with a fortune in the climate science are the ones who want you to not believe it.