I'm astonished that, after over 30 years of ever more confident linkage of rising global temperatures to steadily increasing levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases (especially carbon dioxide and methane), there are still people who dismiss the whole idea. Since I have retired from active combat, I won't attempt to rebut every contrarian point made above, but will simply remind you of the carbon cycle(s). Wikipedia provides a basic primer.

To answer the point that 'all fossil fuels derive from plant matter', it is necessary to make a distinction between fast and slow carbon cycles. The fast carbon cycle or biological carbon cycle may be completed within a few years, moving carbon from atmosphere to biosphere, then back to the atmosphere. Slow or geological cycles take millions of years to complete, moving carbon to / from rocks, soil, ocean and atmosphere, producing among other things coal, oil and fossil methane (gas).

Growing plants sequester carbon and, by photosynthesis, break down carbon dioxide into carbon and oxygen. Plant matter that is burned completes the carbon cycle by converting carbon into carbon dioxide without much net change to atmospheric levels of that gas. However, plants that decay / are transformed in anaerobic conditions (without oxygen), whether underground (in landfills or soil), in the guts of sheep and cattle, or underwater (in rice paddies, lakes, etc), produce methane, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, albeit less long-lived. Changes in human activity, chiefly through agriculture and livestock, have increased the volume of atmospheric methane by over 160% since the 18th century.

Fossil carbon (coal, gas, oil) has been formed over millions of years, but when burned it combines with oxygen to form carbon dioxide. Thus, over a geologically short time (100 years or so), by burning increasing amounts of fossil carbon as fuel we have released into the atmosphere carbon formed over millions of years, and this carbon dioxide is additional to that produced by the burning of more recently formed plant matter.

The result is that we have higher concentrations of carbon in the atmosphere than at any time in human history. This may be no big deal on a geological timescale but, all other evidence apart, it would be heroic to assume that this will make no difference to the viability of civilisation.

Saying something over and over for decades doesn't make it any more true.

We've had 2000 years of people believing that some bread and cheap wine literally turns into Jesus's flesh and blood during mass. Hundreds of millions believe it. It doesn't make it true.

The problem is that the evidence to link warming to CO2 is actually very weak, simply because for such a causality to be established requires way more evidence than we actually have and for a way longer time period.

We simply don't know the earth's temperature over much of the globe because measurements do not exist for most of it before the post WW2 period. Almost everything before the 50's is derived from models. Models created by organisations whose starting point is a certain belief.

We are supposed to have reached "tipping points" back in 2000, beyond which climate change was irreversible. That's what the "science" told us - apparently. Its what the UN told us. So enjoy life, we don't need to take action because its already too late..

...unless, of course, that claim was a lie.

One other point.
The manipulation from the media as they try to fill their 24 hour rolling output is clear. The infantilisation, the bright colours, the breathless reporting of catastrophe from the very heart of the furnace, the sad face as "Elena from Athens' says it has never been this bad before and 'is increasing exponentially', is just what media does.
Why though, is sober 'science' playing the same game? Isn't there a scientist anywhere that has rservations about the impact of 'catastrophisation' on the facts? Or are they just enjoying the ride?

The 'peer review' effect which worked so very well during covid?

I spent a career doing just that. I know exactly how it works thanks, so FO.
And my specialism was never political during my time. Indeed, it currently remains as apolitical as meteorology and epidemiology used to be. Niche and boring in fact.

My specialism is though still profoundly protective of its reputation for probity and is aghast at the way these others have pandered to the hysteria, half-truths and naked manipulation of data.