Thanks for the response, and again, thanks for engaging politely...

Thanks for the response, and again, thanks for engaging politely - it doesnt often happen. We can disagree on things, but I have no doubt you are a good person with good intentions.

"I'll summarise my argument and then you can read details belowCO2 is increasing, it is probably largely manmade, the planet is warming but not drastically, whatever we do to reduce co2 will make no difference because there is a tide of extra co2 emissions coming out of India and China next decade that will dwarf what the west reduces. We are better off spending money to grow our economy, R@D new technologies and adapt. Going down the transition path will cripple our industries, make China richer and achieve nothing in the big scheme other then virtue signalling."Its a good summary and it looks like we largely agree on many points.
Atmospheric CO2 is increasing ✔
It is probably "man-made" ✔ (Although, I'd prefer something like, "A lot of it is human induced" just being nit-picky)
The planet is warming ✔
But not drastically - Well, one mans drastic is another mans mild inconvenience. I would agree that the warming right now is probably not a drastic issue for us rich Westerners with the ability to adapt, but there are plenty of people around the world that would not be able to adapt like we can for many reasons.

Whatever we do to reduce co2 will make no difference because there is a tide of extra co2 emissions coming out of India and China next decade - Again, I think this argument is a bit weak, and I'll make one last comment that I heard back in my undergraduate conservation biology class. There had been a king tide, and thousands upon thousands of starfish had washed up on a beach. This lady was walking along the beach tossing them back into the ocean one by one when someone walked up to her and said "There's thousands of starfish on this beach, you wont make a difference" to which the woman picked up another starfish, threw it into the ocean and said "I made a difference to that one".

This might be idealist in me, but I dont think we should shrug out shoulders and say "we wont make a difference".

We are better off spending money to grow our economy, R@D new technologies and adapt ✔ - I agree, that technology will certainly play a big part.
Going down the transition path will cripple our industries - Maybe, maybe not. Did we tell the DVD manufacturers to not develop DVD's because it would cripple the video tape industry? Did we tell Netflix to shutdown because it would cripple Blockbuster and Video Ezy? Of course not! That's how we progress.

...Make China richer and achieve nothing in the big scheme other then virtue signalling. - We have the ability to do much of the work with out own resources, we dont have to make a foreign country richer.

Ill by pass the Bhutan stuff for now, it seems a little irrelevant, but I will add that Bhutan seems to have cheap, reliable, electricity.

"You - Sorry, let me clarify - it was not all in the atmosphere at once. It was all in the atmosphere at once, the plants and animals sequestered it over 100's of millions of years."

The highest estimated CO2 ppm in earths history is from the Ordovician which showed anywhere from 3000-9000ppm.

Several sources estimate Earths total Carbon is 1.85 billion, billion tonnes. (A quintillion) 1,850,000,000,000,000,000
The atomic weight of carbon makes up about 27% of the Carbon Dioxide molecule.
1 ppm of CO2 weighs 2.12 billion tonnes. Therefore the carbon part is approx 27% of this which means 1ppm of CO2 comprises of 0.57 billion tonnes of Carbon.
9000ppm therefore = 5166 billion tonnes of carbon.
Its late where I am, but I hope that math checks out - please correct me if I am wrong.
So, as I mentioned it was never all in the atmosphere at the same time. It flowed. As you mentioned, nature sequestered it over millions of years.

"You - But you also ignored the point where I said when CO2 was much higher, it was also much warmer. Equally there have been times in much more recent history where co2 hadn't started increasing and temperatures were much higher then the surrounding years. For example the mid 1880's had a co2 of 290 compared to 1990 that ranged from 355-365 but average temperature was colder in the 1990's then in the 1880's. Hangon but co2 was higher but the temperatures were lower. This is drawn from the peer reviewed pages2k consortium. https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788. Graph is below, so clearly something in addition or other then co2 is playing a role."I think you're referring to this graph?

Well, sure, 1875 (ish) had the warmest temperature average, until about 1940 (or you could say until the 1980's)
But that's just one year, that's why when measuring trends, scientists dont use small data sets. You could argue cooling from 1940 to 1960, or drastic warming from 1860 to 1880. But anyone looking at this graph can clearly see the trend is rising. There are short term (1-5 year) variations, that scientists are well aware of, and often include them in their data sets.

It’s causing warming – I agree it’s warming, but I disagree that it is all caused by co2 and the amount of change is debatable I also point out that water vapor has the largest greenhouse effect (over 50%) and that scientists models are extremely poor at accounting for water vapor and cloud cover, but they are good at curve fitting.

The reason why I disagree the amount it is warming is
a) the degree of warming is dependent on when you set your base.
b) most records have been homogenized aka adjusted from the original measurements)
c) people confuse weather with climate. In fact, the UN’s World Meteorological Organization defines climate as a thirty-year average, although climate researchers will sometimes discuss averages over a period as short as ten years. So changes in the weather from one year to another do not constitute changes in climate.
d) Water vapor is the most important of the greenhouse gases. Of course, the amount in the atmosphere at any given place and time varies greatly (the humidity changes a lot with the weather). But on average, water vapor amounts to only about 0.4 percent of the molecules in the atmosphere. Even so, it accounts for more than 50 percent of the atmosphere’s ability to intercept heat. A water vapor molecule on average spends less 14 days in the atmosphere so it is difficult to model.
e) predicting future effects of co2 on the climate is not science, in the words of the IPCC "The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible". —Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – May 2018. s
f) It was an early-on (1990s), oft-repeated slogan used to hype computer models that said the Earth was warming at an uncontrolled, runaway, even catastrophic rate, as a result of humans’ unbridled use of fossil fuels. But then the “pause” arrived. Measured global temperatures—the physical evidence—didn’t significantly rise or fall for twelve years. Instead, they flat-lined, in spite of a continuing rise in atmospheric CO2 levels. So, those touting global warming switched to “climate change” about 15 years ago. Climate change supposedly allows for temperatures to warm, cool, or stay the same. It is better in that sense. "Using the data that were available at the time (through 2012), the last climate report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded that there had been no statistically significant increase in global surface temperature from 1998-2012."

It is going to cause a disaster – disagree, the earth has been significantly hotter, human deaths from natural disasters are have seen a 99% decrease in the past 100 years, and mankind is adaptable (According to Darwin’s Origin of Species, it is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself.)

I agree, the amount of warming is debateable, and some areas will experience more warming than others. Some areas may even get slightly cooler. Overall, the average global temperature will indeed be warmer.

Water vapour indeed has a large greenhouse effect, but that effect is short lived as water vapour is in the atmosphere for no more than, say, 2 weeks. CO2 on the other hand remains up there for centuries. Again, scientists dont need to factor this in when making long term models, because, by definition, the water vapour isn't a long term variable. That being said, the warmer the atmosphere, the more moisture that can be "held" in it.

Correct, changes in weather do not constitute changes in climate. A single warmer year is no more proof of climate change than a single colder year is proof against it. Its the trend (as I said above)

Predicting the future of climate states is not the same as predicting the effects of climate change.

"So, those touting global warming switched to “climate change” about 15 years ago. Climate change supposedly allows for temperatures to warm, cool, or stay the same. It is better in that sense."

A myth, that persists to this day (although, the year is often changed). 15 years ago, (or even 20, or 25 years ago) gives us late 1990's. Well, the Intergovernmental Panel on CLIMATE CHANGE was formed in 1988. Better yet, one of the first major papers evidencing carbon dioxide and climate change was called, well, see below
So whilst many people use the term global warming and climate change interchangeably, the scientists have been using the terms correctly and to mean different things.

Global Warming = The overall warming trend observed on earth.
Climate Chane = The changing of the climate.
Furthermore to your point regarding no warming from 1998 to 2012 (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/why-did-earths-surface-temperature-stop-rising-past-decade#:~:text=Using%20the%20data%20that%20were,surface%20temperature%20from%201998%2D2012.)

It is going to cause a disaster – disagree, the earth has been significantly hotter, human deaths from natural disasters are have seen a 99% decrease in the past 100 years, and mankind is adaptable (According to Darwin’s Origin of Species, it is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives; but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing environment in which it finds itself.)

I didn't say it was going to cause a disaster- but again, one mans disaster is another mans mild inconvenience. I dont know if you've also considered our wildlife and environment. In the past, hundreds of thousands of years was quick enough to adapt, centuries and decades? not so much. You and I would probably be fine, but we live in a rich Western country. Not everyone does. Human deaths have indeed reduced (I'll accept your claim we've seen a 99% reduction) but that correlation doesnt mean we haven't seen climate disasters. We have stronger infrastructure, more accurate forecasts and warnings, much better health services.

We can do something to decrease the worlds co2 – disagree, it's a fools errand. The population has increased 3 fold in 84 years! Let that sink in, we had 1/3 of todays population 84 years ago! These extra people breathe out 255kg of co2 a year, or an extra 1.5 b tonnes a year without doing anything else. 84% of people (that's over 6 billion) live in third world countries that are exempt from reducing carbon. These are also the countries who are industrializing and are poor, so they will always use fossil fuels as these are the most energy dense, reliable and cheapest forms of energy. Fossil fuels will increase in total tonnes used over the coming decade despite net zero policies in the west.

I cant reduce consumption and impact on the environment to zero, but that's not a good reason why I shouldn't try and reduce it at all.

I'll try to address your remining points in another post as I have run out of time, but once again, thanks for engaging politely, I'm sure we can learn a thing or two from each other.