you've backed off on your earlier statement that "Nobody believes that CO2 controls the climate," which would of course mean that there's no point in limiting CO2 production"Only CO2" doesn't control the climate. It is one among many factors. It is given more importance because human activity contributes more to this particular factor than others.
Nobody agrees that Paris accord is pointless.
The reality is that many warmers do believe (or at least claim) that CO2 is the primary driver of global warming, hence the Paris Accord
here's warmer-in-chief algore talking about CO2, here's another warmer, Carbon dioxide is the primary driver of greenhouse warming
here's the warmers at NASA and NOAA,
The planet’s average surface temperature has risen about 2.0 degrees Fahrenheit (1.1 degrees Celsius) since the late 19th century, a change driven largely by increased carbon dioxide and other human-made emissions into the atmosphere.
There was outrage when Scott Pruitt, President Trump's pick to head the EPA, said that this was untrue, EPA chief Scott Pruitt says carbon dioxide is not a primary contributor to global warming
warmer-in-chief algore was outraged by this, and called it fake news, algore says EPA head Pruitt’s carbon dioxide claims are ‘obviously false’Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt said Thursday he does not believe carbon dioxide is a primary contributor to global warming.
"I think that measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do and there's tremendous disagreement about the degree of impact, so no, I would not agree that it's a primary contributor to the global warming that we see," he told CNBC's "Squawk Box."
"But we don't know that yet. ... We need to continue the debate and continue the review and the analysis."
This is what professor lindzen said, in the article I linked earlier,Former Vice President Al Gore slammed new EPA chief Scott Pruitt on Monday for his claim last week that carbon emissions aren’t the primary cause of global warming.
“It’s an obviously false assertion,” Gore told PBS NewsHour’s Judy Woodruff, adding that Pruitt’s claim was a “perfect example” of the debate over fake news and facts that erupted after Donald Trump’s election last November.
I haven’t spent much time on the details of the science, but there is one thing that should spark skepticism in any intelligent reader. The system we are looking at consists in two turbulent fluids interacting with each other. They are on a rotating planet that is differentially heated by the sun. A vital constituent of the atmospheric component is water in the liquid, solid and vapor phases, and the changes in phase have vast energetic ramifications. The energy budget of this system involves the absorption and reemission of about 200 watts per square meter. Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to this budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.