I can only hope that it is your ideological zeal and profound scientific ignorance, and not a deliberate and malicious attempt to mislead and confuse, which has led you to cherry-pick and misinterpret this article in order to promote a view which is completely opposite of that held by its author. You also completely failed to mention that on the way he totally demolishes one of your more tiresome arguments: the role of water vapor in the global warming process.

The following quote only briefly summarizes what the man actually sets out to prove, but I strongly suggest Zoners take the time to actually read the entire article, follow his line of reasoning, and see for themselves how completely you have attempted to turn it on its head. It's tough going, but it is worth it to help one decide if this embarassing post is merely wrong, or something else altogether.

"So, if a skeptical friend hits you with the "saturation argument" against global warming, here's all you need to say: (a) You'd still get an increase in greenhouse warming even if the atmosphere were saturated, because it's the absorption in the thin upper atmosphere (which is unsaturated) that counts (b) It's not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2, (c) Water vapor doesn't overwhelm the effects of CO2 because there's little water vapor in the high, cold regions from which infrared escapes, and at the low pressures there water vapor absorption is like a leaky sieve, which would let a lot more radiation through were it not for CO2, and (d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models."

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/