You said, "Your hypothesis is that a greenhouse gas won't cause global warming." I never said that. You're putting words in my mouth and frankly I resent the hell out of that.

Your blind faith in unvalidated models is a sign of either gullibility or scientific ignorance. Validation is a key component of proving any hypothesis. It's exceptionally stupid to blindly accept ANY prediction from ANY hypothesis until it is validated against the real world. Like I said before, a computer model is simply a hypothesis that runs on a computer.

Here's an example of how validation works. Years ago, NASA and other organizations developed code to develop what is known as computational fluid dynamics (CFD). CFD allows designs of aerospace vehicles to be simulated on computers without having to use wind tunnel models. This is complicated stuff, especially in the hypersonic arena. NASA worked to test the CFD code by doing things like comparing the results to wind tunnel tests. They took it a step further and instrumented one of the Shuttle orbiters and compared actual measurements against the CFD predictions. Later, the Pegasus launch vehicle was designed using CFD instead of wind tunnel models. NASA contributed to the first flight by putting instruments on the launch vehicle to measure the actual results against the CFD predictions. The results matched the model very closely. Today, engineers can design vehicles using the CFD code with a high degree of confidence because it has been validated against the real world. That's how science works.

Show me any of the climate models that have been validated against the real world historical climate record. If you can't, then the model simply are nothing more than educated guesses with a lot of room for error. Validation is key to the scientific process. It can't be ignored no matter what the cause, be it global warming or anything else. You're making a anti-scientific argument when you blindly accept the model because it conforms you your preconceived notions of how the climate works. It's a weak argument. I thought you knew more about how science works than to blindly accept something "because the computer said so."

Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas but not the most common one. The most common greenhouse gas in Earth's environment is water vapor. Unless you propose putting a cover over the oceans, there's not a lot we can do about that.

The Earth's climate has warmed and cooled innumerable times in geologic history. The evidence that it's warming right now is pretty compelling. However, the scientific understanding of the mechanisms is still pretty weak. If science can't explain very well why the climate warmed and cooled all of those previous times, then it can't very well explain why it might be warming now.

I just returned from a two week trip to Alaska. There is ample evidence that many of the glaciers are retreating, although a few are getting bigger. This glacier retreat has been going on for a long, well before massive industrialization. From this history of Glacier Bay:

"As you enter Glacier Bay in Southeast Alaska you will cruise along shorelines completely covered by ice just 200 years ago. Explorer Captain George Vancouver found Icy Strait choked with ice in 1794, and Glacier Bay was barely an indented glacier. That glacier was more than 4000 ft. thick, up to 20 miles or more wide, and extended more than 100 miles to the St.Elias Range of mountains. By 1879 naturist John Muir found that the ice had retreated 48 miles up the bay. By 1916 the Grand Pacific Glacier headed Tarr inlet 65 miles from Glacier Bay's mouth. SUCH RAPID RETREAT IS KNOWN NOWHERE ELSE ON EARTH. Scientists have documented it, hoping to learn how glacial activity relates to climate changes."

Catch the key points:
In 1794, the whole bay was covered by a glacier.

By 1879, the glacier had retreated 48 miles up the bay.

By 1916, the glacier had retreated 65 miles up the bay. The retreat is continuing to this day, BUT IT BEGAN LONG BEFORE THE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF GREENHOUSE GASES WERE RELEASED IN THE ATMOSPHERE.

An example of global warming? Possibly. Was this warming caused by human activity? Very unlikely. For that matter, about 10,000 years ago, glaciers extended as far south as Iowa and Nebraska during the last ice age. Obviously, they're not there today so we have a definite example of global warming thousands of years ago. What caused that warming? If you can't answer that question, then you sure as hell can't explain what may be causing the climate to warm today.

The "don't just sit there, do something" mentality you propose has been the root of much human suffering over the years. There are often unintended consequences of political decisions, especially those based on populist economic or scientific theories. It's quite common that actions taken with the best of intentions end up making things worse, not better. Less than 30 years ago, some of the same people who're now talking about global warming were predicting an imminent ice age. Of course, they blamed human activity for causing that and recommended almost exactly the same "cures" back then as they do today. For all anyone knows, human released greenhouse gases might be the only thing holding us out of another ice age, did you ever consider that? If you look at the geologic record, you'll find that ice ages often began very quickly and they were a lot harmed on humanity than the predicted warming would be. The simple answer is that science doesn't know enough about what drives climate change, and it's possible rushing to do what could be the wrong thing could make things a lot worse than doing nothing.

You've really shot your credibility on this one, IMO. I'll keep this conversation in mind when reading any of your other opinions. If they're based on such unscientific misinformation as this thread, then they're as worthless as those of James or Mars Revealer.