The book is disputing that point. If you want to knock it down, you should be debunking the argument that it makes.
There's no difference here between arguing against CO2 warming and the Earth being a sphere(oid). Anybody that's still publishing material arguing that the science on this point is in any way unsettled is intentionally ignoring results from the field that disagrees with their ideology.
I don't think the book is arguing that CO2 rich atmosphere don't retain more heat. Factors like these don't exist in isolation though. And he seems to be arguing that variations in natural factors explain the global climate history better than CO2 levels. I'm not sure if that's true, but that seems to be the point that needs debunking, if it isn't.
> The “97% consensus” that all scientists believe CO2 causes global warming is a based on badly flawed data and is a complete misrepresentation of facts.
Science is not conducted through consensus. Who cares about the 97% figure?
> Climate predictions based on computer modeling have been a miserable failure
No, they haven't. Hansen (1988!) has been extremely accurate [2].
> No global warming occurred for 18 years and 8 months through December 2015.
Total meme-argument. There is no denying the temperature increase [3]. Debunked time and time again.
> NOAA and NASA have corrupted surface temperature records.
Evidence? This is completely unsubstantiated.
> Only satellite temperature measurements are reliable.
I don't agree, but there are multiple satellite datasets that indicate global warming is real.
> The past is the key to the future.
ok?
> Cyclic climatic patterns in the geologic past provide a basis for predicting future climate changes.
Cyclic, I'm not sure of. But "climatic patterns in the geologic past" have been studied extensively and DO provide a basis for "predicting future climate changes". Key among them: CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B978012804...
[2] https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction.htm
[3] https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Glob...
> As noted above, Hansen's model overpredicted the ensuing global warming thus far by approximately 15 to 25%. Thus if we estimate that the sensitivity of his model was 15 to 25% too high (which is an oversimplification, but will give us a reasonably accurate back-of-the-envelope estimate), ...
Predicting global warming for ~30 years within 25% in 1988 seems "pretty accurate" to me, isn't it? Surely it's a far cry from the skeptical position that models are so wrong that we can gain nothing from them.