I don't know anybody who denies that the average world near-surface temperatures have increased by a significant 1.6 degrees or so in the last 100 years.
The debate seems to be whether carbon dioxide increases could be the cause and whether reducing their emissions could alleviate the problem. I've issued a challenge before for anyone to find a basic experiment on the properties of carbon dioxide to absorb and radiate heat since the time of Tyndall in the mid-19th century. That challenge still stands. And remember that Tyndall recorded that the carbonic acid he used, radiated off its heat as fast as it absorbed it.
In fact a pilot experiment was conducted in 2008 to 2012 via the Marakesh Accord wherein 37 countries plus the European Union agreed to achieve certain targets of carbon dioxide emission-reduction. That pilot experiment had absolutely NO detectable effect on the graph of emissions during and subsequent to that period. You can have a look at the Cape Grim or Mauna Loa graphs for yourself. Why haven't the results of that Marakesh Accord been published and scientifically investigated by the the IPCC? If they were able to demonstrate even a modicum of a reduction after that pilot experiment, it would have given all of us a bit of confidence in the carbon dioxide faith. It did not happen.
I'm quite skeptical about the role of carbon dioxide in 'Climate Change'.
It seems to me a case of everyone ignoring the elephant in the room -- world population increases. I published a crude graph on this in another thread some time back showing a 90% correlation between annual residual world populations and the megatonnes of carbon emitted annually. There was a 90% correlation. I reworked those figures recently and found I'd transcribed one piece of data as 8000-odd megatonnes instead of 6000-odd megatonnes. The corrected figure came out with a pearson Coefficient of 0.94 (P<0.00001), which is getting close to 1.0.
This means that if anybody is putting their in faith carbon dioxide on the basis of the accuracy of the mathematical models using carbon dioxide to predict future changes, that they would achieve close to the same results if population figures were substituted for carbon dioxide figures. They are close to interchangeable.
If you wish to see a graph that is rising in the same manner as population and carbon dioxide, have a look at this this one on increases in world usage of electricity usage (Kwh per head of population) --
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.ELEC.KH.PC. I would be interested if any of our mathematicians could convert those figures into average temperature rises at near-surface levels.
I produced a schemattic diagram of populations in another post some time back and demonstrated its interractions with a number of other adverse situations including exhaustion of agricultural fertlilizer supplies.
Even though I have not seen any convincing basic evidence that carbon dioxide is seriously involved in the small average increases in near-surface temperatures, I can see that if you can slow down population, you will definitely see a slow-down in carbon dioxide emissions, and conversely I believe that nothing is going to change until we address that elephant in the room.