Time for change

Re: "I looked at your references, statements were made but no scientific proof was there."

- that's exactly what I thought about YOUR OWN website. It is not very helpful to ask "scientific proofs" from others and not presenting them for your own speculations.

"Recent investigations have shown that inconceivable catastrophic changes in the environment will take place if the global temperatures increase by more than 2° C (3.6° F). A warming of 2° C (3.6° F) corresponds to a carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration of about 450 ppm (parts per million) in the atmosphere. "

This is incorrect. There will likely not be 2C warming until CO2 is doubled. 2C just from 380ppm to 450ppm is an overestimate. Here's why:
The temperature increase is estimated to grow at 5.35 log (C/C0). Since the temperature rise from 280ppm to 380ppm was about .6C, and that ratio is 1.35, it would take another 1.35 ratio to have another .6C rise - or about 512ppm. So nothing drastic will happen until 500ppm. It doesnt make sense to tout a model that doesnt agree with measured data and the measured data shows 0.6C rise from a 35% increase in CO2.

This further means that high temperature rise estimates should be considered suspect since they dont really agree with the measured data.

The chart shows the temperatures from 1989, however such short timeframes obscure the real CO2 impact since natural temperature variability year-to-year is much larger than CO2 impact on a single year basis (see above equation, the amount is tiny - about .025 degrees maximum - while natural annual variability is as much as ten times that. So you should show the temperature rise over 100 years. Do that, and you see a rise of about .6C over 100 years total.

"The carbon dioxide is released to the atmosphere where it remains for 100 to 200 years."
This is not correct. There is uptake of over 50% of emitted CO2 into oceans and biosphere. The mean visit time in atmosphere is much less than 100 years.
It is not clear that drastic CO2 reductions are needed to slow down CO2 rise, since the ocean will absorb
more CO2, and since biosphere will take up CO2 as well, as CO2 levels rise. That carbon cycle is 10 times bigger than man-s input of CO2 and so if it becomes 5% more 'productive', it will draw down majority of CO2 we emit.
On the flipside, higher temperatures will reduce solubility of CO2, to counterbalance the diffusion somewhat (but not entirely).

Last, there is not a particular year that is critical. Not 450ppm, not 500ppm. Each year if ppm rises by 2 ppm, influence on temperature is a small 0.025 C. Doing nothing until 2100 causes increase in 2.5C but Stopping anytime sooner by any amount will reduce the effect.

The warming of the earth will not be catastrophic. Science shows that extreme weather events wont increase, precipitation overall will increase, and regional impacts will vary. Where is temp increase greatest? this is mainly at night, in wintertime, in high latitudes. In the meantime higher CO2 means faster plant growth. This is hardly a catastrophe.

"In a fair world, there is absolutely no justification for the western world to pollute the Earth more than others."
There is simply no moral basis for this statement at all. There is nothing fair about making people all the same, on the contrary that is anathema to freedom, choice and human uniqueness. Different people do different things, so in a 'fair world' people will have freedom to do more or less of one thing, including pollute. Some will do more and some will do less. So long as those who do more are contributing more in other ways (maybe paying taxes for their use of pollutants), it is equitable.