Resolving at least what is in my post is much easier than working through the IPCC's reports:
It's simple, really simple, just as in my post:
Observational data: The main observational data used to argue the dangerous effects of CO2 is just the 800,000 years of ice core data. But just looking at that data, as I explained in fine detail, that data does not support the claimed effects of CO2.
Models. Again as I explained carefully, so far the climate models have been proven wrong by reality and, in particular, have no predictive value and, thus, are not good science.
Net, there is nothing credible in data or models that says human sources of CO2 will cause significant warming.
In particular, the IPCC has no data or models that do better.
If you want to make an argument for being alarmed, I can do better than the IPCC: We don't really know what CO2 will do. In particular we have no data or models that are credible and say that we are safe.
I have shown, in just one simple post, that the alarmists don't have credible evidence. But I have not shown that we are safe.
Now the next real question is, what to do when we don't have any credible evidence that we are safe or not.
"It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the global climate system since pre-industrial times."
"The likely range of human-induced warming in global-mean surface air temperature (GSAT) in 2010–2019 relative to 1850–1900 is 0.8°C–1.3°C, encompassing the observed warming of 0.9°C–1.2°C, while the change attributable to natural forcings is only −0.1°C–0.1°C."
This is as far as I go to help educate you, as I remain unconvinced any efforts to do more would be helpful.
I have seen that IPCC statement you quoted before and don't regard it as credible.
Again, once again, over again, yet again, one more time, just
from what I wrote, from either data or models, there is no credible evidence that CO2 from human activities has had, is having, or will have a significant effect on temperature.
When there is credible evidence, I will pay close attention.
The IPCC can say "unequivocal" all they want, but that does not make their claims true.
Actually saying "unequivocal" is at best just a qualitative summary and no evidence at all.
So far, no one has any credible evidence that humans are significantly warming the earth, and in particular the IPCC has no such evidence.
If you want to point to where the IPCC has credible evidence, then fine, but just their claiming "unequivocal" means nothing.
But again, so far no one has any such credible evidence; in particular, the IPCC has none, and there is none to point to in their many long documents.
To explain further, the data from the 800,000 years has not changed. Data from just the last 150 years or so is not very much data. The models that have been tested by comparison with reality have nearly all failed. That's where we stand, including the IPCC.
I love how "skeptic249757" think their few hours of google searching is somehow comparable to a massive body of climate researchers that have spend decades digging into the state of our climate. It's like the time my boss told me the lump in my neck was nothing to worry about and I was wasting my time by having a doctor look at it.
But, as they say, you can't reason someone out of a position that didn't reason into in the first place.
Read this, all of it, then come back here and make your argument again: https://www.ipcc.ch/assessment-report/ar6/