Ok, now you are resorting to dragging in all sorts of crap. Greta, CO2 fairy, JW, mini ice age because you finally worked out that the battery isn't as bad as the hype first stated. Yes when it first came out, 100 MWh, pft, an expensive nothing. But clearly the expansion and addition to more batteries is starting to have an impact, like solar in the past and now 5 years later we have GWh of batteries in project. How long before we have TWh being built?
I've express my views in the past on CO2 and yes I don't agree with alot of the hype. But it does get down to one basic question.
Do you think pumping the current amount of CO2 is likely good for the planet?
Forget everything else, simply answer that one simple question Yes or No. Do you think the planet will be equal or better off with the current CO2 emissions.
Regarding the battery, in a severe wind drought like the UK experienced last year batteries will be completely useless because they rely on having something with which to charge them - same goes for pumped hydro. You have to have something with which to cyclically charge these things to begin with and I believe they're going to seriously under-estimate how long these things can persist. The UK was in an extremely lucky position because they were able to get loads of nuclear energy via undersea cables specifically from France - but then because the UK was placing such a huge demand on French nuclear reactors they had to import their own electric supply from Eastern Europe - which is generally coal-fired.
We will have no such luxury in this country once supplies like Liddell. Yallorn and Loy Yang are gone. We'll be completely on our own - there will be blackouts entirely at the discretion of nature. The alternative for Australia is to keep very large supplies on constant standby (probably gas turbines) which is going to add to the overall cost of going 'carbon neutral' quite a bit. That's my main problem with the concept of a 'carbon neutral' society - someone will have to pay very dearly to keep the lights on, generally the poorest Australians who can least afford the middle class welfare of a small solar plant on your roof.
And to answer your question - there's no scientific evidence for carbon dioxide as an agent for (either) cooling or warming... let me repeat, no demonstrable relationship whatsoever.
I can show you in a few simple charts. Now whenever you try and examine the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere what you'll usually be shown is something like the chart below which will only show you the concentration of CO2 in the last few hundred years since the start of the industrial revolution (I guess because that has the scariest looking curve):
What you won't be shown is this chart - which plots the average global surface temperature against the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere since the Precambrian era some 4,500,000,000 years ago:
If anything the relationship between temperatures and higher concentrations of carbon dioxide looks like it's actually the inverse
of what we've been told is true - at the end of the Jurassic era there was a sudden rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide at the same time as a (relatively) rapid fall in average temperatures.
What we're not really told about our present situation relative to the past is that carbon dioxide is still almost at the very lowest concentrations that its ever been in earth's history; also that average global temperatures have nearly always been warmer than they are now anyway - and yet life went on.
So while climate alarmists are trying to tell us that the rising levels of carbon dioxide is an immanent threat to life on earth (somehow) the evidence about what actually happened in the past when the same thing occurred shows us that on average nothing happens.
For example, at the end of the Jurassic and start of the Cretaceous eras - the last time there was a major CO2 spike - nothing particularly exciting or dramatic happened although there's evidence of ongoing evolutionary shift as you'd expect. And what mass extinction events do exist they tend to not be linked with carbon dioxide but rather things like the Chicxulub impactor, major volcanic activity etc.
So yeah - even with the relatively tiny amount of carbon dioxide increase that can be attributed to human activity I really don't expect on the balance of probabilities that things are going to change that much. The history of the planet tells us this is the likely outcome.