You are looking through CO2 right now. Climate science says CO2 is reflecting everything back at you. Carbon is not deadly.

Trees love it... they produce oxygen from it... which cools the planet...

Plant more trees. Stop the deforestation in the Brazilian rainforest.🌴

NASA says there are more trees now... with most growth showing in India and China... pure coincidence they are using more fossil fuels than other countries... huh?

CO2 is more oxygen than carbon anyway. One carbon atom has the molecular weight of 12 g/mol and each oxygen atom is 16.00 g/mol for a total of 32. CO2 is 73% oxygen.

It’s also heavier than air which means it can’t form a canopy to make a greenhouse gas over earth. The entire atmosphere would have to be saturated with it for that to happen, and then vegetation would change that to Oxygen.

Precisely. 95%of atmospheric CO2 is within 1500 feet of Earth's surface, stunningly right where plant life needs it to thrive.

carbon and carbon DIOXIDE are not the same and shouldn't even be compared. carbon is a chemical element. carbon dioxide is a chemical compound. i hope you realize a singular atom can change an entire compound. and it's not even the fact that co2 exists that's harming the planet, it's the excess amount.

Do this, draw 1 million dots. Color 350 of them the loveliest green you can find, then color 50 of them the deadliest red you know of. You will have created a scale model of the so called ideal level of 350 parts per million, and the catastrophic addition of 50 manmade parts per million. Then, get back to me with what you think.
Aw, what the hell. 400 ppm is what is called in science an "absurd" number. CO2 measures over 3500 ppm downwind of rainforests where more vegetative material is decomposing. It measures in the teens at the poles where there is no vegetative material. To say the worldwide CO2 average is 400 ppm is absurd. As for an average worldwide temperature, again it is absurd. The poles have been measured as low as negative 135 degrees F, Death Valley has been measured at 135 degrees, does that make the average temperature of the earth zero? No. A highly esteemed statistician told me that even if determining an average temperature of earth could be considered valid, it would require extended study of over a trillion data points to determine a meaningless number. I can go on, every valid science invalidates so called climate science. Look at what the offered solution is. It's a global problem they say, that requires a global government. Not thousands of independent scientists working, a single world government of politicians. Should trigger a BS alarm in you. Study the gas laws of physics for more proof.

do this, assume you are 150lbs. ingest an ounce of cyanide in order to make your 150lb body 420ppm cyanide since, by your reasoning, it should not affect you at all. now, as you might notice, it's actually about 40x the lethal dose. you will die. do you see where your logic falls apart? no matter how many words you use, you are still incorrect. here's some sources on ppm when compared to humans, i hope this analogy helped; https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/idlh/cyanides.html, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207601/, https://www.chemsee.com/commercial/food-poisons/resources/chemnotes-food-poison-detection/cyanide-poisoning/?srsltid=AfmBOorCFHICiofwLoXbhODFyNpQz1wTo04xNMJnGs__QbUYawM-PuKJ

Apples and oranges. If your analogy were meaningful, which it isn't primarily since you are using a toxic substance in place of a non-toxic substance, you are basically imposing a fallacy. Implying that CO2 is poison is disingenuous at the least and manipulative at it's worst.
Do you know that organic greenhouses enhance the CO2 levels to around 2000 ppm to increase production? CO2 is essential for life, it is not toxic. It is a clear (some gases have color), it is transparent and has no reflectivity. I spent years doing gas analysis, these are known conditions determined by over a century of science. Read OSHA standards for permissible CO2 levels in the workplace. Again. a in my working life I measured CO2 concentrations in enclosed spaces. OSHA limits workers to 8 hours a day in concentrations of 10,000 ppm.
Bottom line, 400 ppm CO2 is not hazardous, in fact the science of botany has determined this arbitrary number is precariously low regarding the ability of plant life to sustain itself.
Another fallacy is the idea of an average temperature of earth. I live on 10 acres, on one 1500 foot long side it is open, on the opposite side it is open with a small drainage coming from higher elevation. I have measured a 15 degree F difference from one side to the other in the mornings as cool air drops down the drainage, and the opposite side warms from sunlight. I have 100 foot gain in elevation from one end to the other, temperatures vary 1.5-2.8 degrees from top to bottom. As the sun rises, these variables change by the second. Temperatures at ground level in the forested areas can be 20 degrees cooler than the exposed areas. Cloud cover impacts temperatures, precipitation affects temperatures, prevailing winds affect the temperatures. Trying to model the average temperature in a 24 hour period on this ten acres is virtually impossible, averaging the temperature over 365 days even more so. If I go to another 10 acre parcel 1/2 mile from my house, it is shaded from sunlight on a hillside year round, and never attains the temperatures measured on my property. Extrapolate this out to the "average temperature of the earth", which is supposedly 58 degrees and it is a meaningless number. There are vast places on earth that never warm to 58 degrees, there are vast expanses that never cool to 58 degrees. What good is it to say the average temperature of the earth has increase 1/10th of a degree over 20, 30 or 50 years. Temperature is cyclical, and it is not uniform.

The million dot exercise is in relationship to reflectance, Supposedly CO2 is so powerful that it shapes the entire atmosphere. Putting 50 parts per million into perspective, it should be obvious that that there are more forces at play than CO2. Physics proves that CO2 is not reflective anyway.
The data set for temperature readings is at best less than 200 years of data in a very limited scope. Satellite data is not valid for record highs, and has only really been available since the 1990's. Using 30 years of unreliable data to extrapolate trends on a 4 billion year old planet is shoddy. I study the record high temperatures where I live, if modern man is so destructive, why are so many record high temperatures from 1900-1910 still in place? If this natural variation in temperature is man caused at the levels we are told, all record high temperatures should have been obliterated in the last 10 years.
Facts will not persuade you. Referring to actual science like physics, chemistry, botany, biology, geology, etc. that completely refute "climate change" will not persuade you. I'm sorry so many people like you have been convinced that this is somehow a cataclysmic reality when it is merely a means to achieve political objectives. World wide problems require a world wide government. If it takes lies to bring that tyranny about, so be it. They have no qualms, pushing the failed Malthusian fallacy to accomplish it is no deterrent.

Consider also, CO2 is not permanent. It is constantly being converted to other compounds in a variety of processes, plants separate the carbon atoms which are converted to sugars in the plant's structure and the oxygen atom is released as a waste product from the plant. There is a perpetual system. CO2 will never continuously accumulate since it is constantly consumed by plant life, and most CO2 is located within 1500 feet of the earth's surface, where most of it is created and utilized by plant life. It is not a plate of one way mirrors allowing sunlight to pass through and reflecting all the energy back to earth. It's called equilibrium, if heat/light is radiated back to the earth, an equal amount will be reflected back to space. The problem is CO2 as a gas reflects nothing.
Gases expand when heated, diminishing any so called impermeable reflective qualities climate change requires. Gases are a horrible conductor of heat. Nothing in physics supports climate change.

what i find really humorous is your comment "Nothing in physics supports climate change." the literal institute of physics has studies and research on climate change. physics are used to determine

-like, everything in climate science. erm.

Horrors. Several years ago a glacier in Canada melted revealing a primordial forest. Climate wizards were aghast at the rapid melting that proved global warming. However, they failed to consider what the temperatures of the 10,000 year ice encased forest might have been that allowed the forest to grow in the first place. Of course, it has never been warmer. Mankind t blame. Just one of thousands of examples of much warmer temperatures prior to the oil and gas industry.

Provide your proof. Climate change is a lie.