"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."

Let me point out something very obvious. This guy doesn't deny the very significant role of water vapor in the greenhouse affect of greenhouse gases. No body is that stupid- not this guy, and not the UN. In fact, the reason the UN predicts that CO2 will *significantly* increase global temperature is their "belief" that CO2 gases will "force" a significant increase of global water vapor.
You aren't even in the game if you aren't aware of this.

But you are also in denial, when you don't recognize there hasn't been any measurement of this supposed forcing- it's unproven "belief" that is "sure" to come. No evidence of it happening in the past where periods were much warmer, either.

"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."

Thank you, I suppose for recommending what I linked to.
[Note, to Raoul , this time I bothered to use a embedded link]. Please, do go see the article. And I'm glad you didn't quote the entire article as that's copyright theft.

Now, I try to go point to point on your rebuttal:

"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 "
Which is exactly what I addressed in my first post. Next.

"(b) It's not even true that the atmosphere is actually saturated with respect to absorption by CO2,"

Why yes this is true- CO2 doesn't ever become saturated in the sense that water vapor can saturate- it won't fall out of the sky like rain. And as I said in first post- there is a shortage CO2 and other gases at high altitude. And I agreed that there is very, very little water vapor up there- due to the fact it is very cold. But if 75% of global CO2 is below 10 Km, does the 25% which above 10 km, cause more warming? [especially when you consider that 25% is far more spread out over a greater volume of space].
But if you "using eyes" which see in the long wavelength of infrared, your vision will be blocked in the wave length that CO2 blocks. If you want use a telescope to see that blocked spectrum, having bigger telescope wouldn't solve your problem [that spectrum is saturated]- but you can use a smaller telescope to see through it if you looking from the Stratosphere instead from within the troposphere.

"(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"

True, if one wants to avoid the spectrum that water blocks, one should have a more dramatic results for this than compared to spectrum blocked by CO2- by observing from Stratosphere. I would like to know more details about it- and since NASA is using a infrared telescope from a plane that flies in the Stratosphere this kind of information should be available.
But usually, when people are talking about "water vapor overwhelming the affect of CO2" they aren't talking about the small overlap of the water vapor and CO2 spectrum- but rather they stating the obvious that water vapor is a far more significant greenhouse gas as compared to CO2.

"(d) These issues were satisfactorily addressed by physicists 50 years ago, and the necessary physics is included in all climate models."

I agree. It has always been known that CO2 has been a minor greenhouse gas. The interest historically was to find a way to explain what causes ice ages and warming periods- and we now know that CO2 wasn't a factor in causing these things.