Heh. You might be right. There are always the hard core Believers though.
CO2 is not capable of changing the weather or warming the Earth.
To warm the Earth, additional energy is needed beyond what is already being absorbed from the Sun. CO2 is not an energy source. While is does absorb surface infrared light, this is nothing more than the usual surface cooling itself by heating the atmosphere. Heat can be by conductivity or radiance. CO2 helps to cool the surface, not warm it. After all, it takes energy to emit infrared light.
All of it gets radiated to space. Most of the radiance from Earth is from the surface itself.
You do need to revisit your ideas. More CO2 does increase the earths temperature if all other factors remain equal. Consider this:
What is called the "water vapor window" is the area that surface heat escaped the earth. It is also seen here:
These damn alarmists drawing are hard to explain, because they are not to scale. However, where you see three curves on the spectral intensity graph, these represent 210, 260, and 310 kelvin from right to left, which are not even good numbers to use. If we use
spectral calcs black body calculator, we see that 210k emits only 21% the heat that 310k emits.
Anyway, as more CO2 is accumulated in the atmosphere, the window for the heat to escape narrows. If that window narrows by 1%, then the earth's heat must accumulate about 1% greater to balance the incoming and outgoing heat. Until this balance is achieved, the surface temperature will increase. This 1% increase would be similar at the surface, and cause an approximate 1.6 degree increase. 1% is approximately the change from 1750 to 2011, and in line with the AR5 for assumed forcing change. However, IAW the AR5, temperature only increased about 0.85 degrees. Things in the alarmists world don't match the known sciences. Their 3.71 W/m^2 change at the TOS for a doubling of CO2 would be an approximate 2.2% increase at the surface and an approximate 6.4 degree increase at equalization, which is short for surface IR.
But then... That is also with all other factors remaining stable. Still, their 3.71 W/m^2 at equilibrium is in no way realistic, and continues to change. It was the TOS... No, it's the tropopause... No... It's the troposphere... They cant even make up their mind where the change is at! They keep fiddling with the numbers to make sense of CO2 having a high sensitivity, but CO2 simply has a low sensitivity.
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Just not as potent as they claim.