"I've got plenty of experience analyzing data and while it may sometimes be difficult to tell cause from effect as one poster suggested a combination of laboratory work and data can easily sort that out. CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas based on laboratory AND planetary data. That's the fact so many here and this author keep sweeping under the rug. "
CO2 is a greenhouse gas and adds to the greenhouse affect, but it is not the major element of this. Think about what would happen to global temperature if all CO2 was removed. And going the other way replace the 1 Atm of our Nitrogen and Oxygen with 1 atm of CO2.

Look at Venus, it's got +90 atm of CO2 and is closer to the sun. What would happen if Venus instead had 1 atm of CO2? Or what would happen if you took the 90 atm Venus and move it out to Earth distance from the Sun? The answers to these questions are UNKNOWN, but you make some guesses.
If you put our spinning planet closer to the Sun, so it's at Venus distance, what would happen?
In this last question, the obvious answer is that Earth would get hotter, but MAYBE even in this extreme example, Earth would NOT turn into Venus the hell-like planet. Perhaps, the best guess could very well be that Earth would in a very short period of time [say in timescale of within months] becomes a Venus hell planet with 90+ atmosphere of CO2 with temperature of over 740 K [400 F] . But Earth is physically different than Venus in many major ways- it's rotating, it's got plate tectonics, it's got a magnetosphere, it's got life, and it's got lots of water. Now, by significantly increasing the solar energy, there is no doubt that you would get the Environmentist's nightmare of GW- very violent storms, polar caps melting, and various runaway affects. The huge quantity of water on Earth COULD be the one of major factors which kills everything living on the planet- water is the major element in the greenhouse affect, but water in the form of clouds is also very effective at reflecting solar energy back into space. MAYBE, it's possible you would have a situation where a blue sky would be very rare event of the planet's surface, perhaps getting them in the eyes of hurriances, the cloud cover could vary light levels from near darkness to periods where it get as light as if in typical overcast day.
Another similar question is what would happen if you added the same quantity of water on Earth to Venus? Presently, on the surface of Venus it's like a cloudy day on Earth. If you go under water on Earth to depth in which the pressure is 90 atm you are in complete darkness and water temperature is close to freezing. Living at 3000' under water on Earth (anywhere on Earth) the temperature doesn't vary much, and it's so dark- night and day are not known by the light levels percievable by human eyes [instead you might know night and day by changing patterns of various lifeforms 1/2 mile above you- they are going up and down the water column]. So, on Venus the water is a vapor and now it "really" blocks light- you would know this if you have ever been in fog. So currently Venus is the bright morning star, add water to it, and it's a brighter morning star. How much brighter, I don't know exactly, maybe twice as bright?? [Btw this could be accurately predicted- I just don't know]
The point I'm trying to draw your attention to, is we don't know the factors involved global temperature change. It's not the point that I don't know much about it, NOBODY knows enough about it. If I'm wrong, and there are people who "know enough", then they could answer some of these questions. If YOU knew enough, you could answers these type of questions. I KNOW you could make guesses, anyone can do that, BUT can you accurately predict. Can ANYONE accurately predict? We are in the infant stages in our knowledge, if someone claims they somehow are knowledgable enough in this area, then it would be similar to a doctor 3 century ago to saying they can cure cancer [at that time no one even knew anything about cancer- or the existance of cancer cells].
Now, the argument against this lack of knowledge, is "we can't wait, for the answers". This is simply nonsense and utterly unscientific. It's similar to saying, "You have a fever, therefore I'm going to remove your brain- it's adding heat". And the "doctor" is barely competent at taking a temperature; has no idea of what the brain does. Has never even seen brain surgury, but "how hard could that be". That the doctor has finished his schooling and has a sheepskin proving he has veterianary training, is not something that is reassuring. And the fact that he has killed almost every patient he has treated would be an even more pertinent factor.
"Get away from me with that wood saw".
Now, I might be afraid, but that doesn't mean I should "take my medicine".