Climataologists claim there is 79% radiation in the energy leaving the earth's surface. A white hot light bulb cannot emit that much radiation without a vacuum environment. Reduce it to the 1-3% that it should be and global warming reduces by a factor of 40. The claimed 0.7°C caused by humans becomes 0.018°C. This error occurred because an erroneous Stefan-Boltzmann constant shows 20-50 times too much radiation at normal temperatures.
Of the heat in the atmosphere, 99.76% gets there through other means than carbon dioxide. The remaining 0.24% is irrelevant. It will do whatever the other 99.76% does, with hourly and daily variations.
Most heat leaves the surface of the earth through conduction, convection and evaporation. About 1-3% leaves as radiation. Of the black body infrared radiation, 8% is absorbed by carbon dioxide. Eight percent of 3% is 0.24% attributable to carbon dioxide.
The reason why 0.24% of the heat in the atmosphere doesn't create global warming is the same reason why the first 99.76% doesn't create global warming. It leaves at night. Of course, some stays, more during the summer than during the winter. Is that global warming? Then humans aren't the cause, the sun is.
Even though radiation is very weak compared to conduction and evaporation, radiation is emitted from the atmosphere much faster than from solid surfaces, because it can leave from every point in a transparent gas simultaneously, while it can only be emitted from the surface molecules on a solid. Near the surface, radiation travels about 10 meters before being re-absorbed. It is then re-emitted in about 83 femto seconds.
Fakes say a "delicate balance" is being upset. How come seasonal changes don't upset a delicate balance. There is no such thing as a delicate balance. The temperature changes constantlywarmer near the equator and colder near the poles.
You say "delicate balance" applies to the carbon dioxide, not the temperature. Idiot. Twice as much global warming is attributed to secondary effects as to the primary effect by carbon dioxide. It means the heat is doing most of the heating, according to climatologists.
But regardless, even with the claim of climatologists of 79% radiation, 8% of 79% is 6.32%. It means carbon dioxide can only be absorbing 6.32% of the energy which leaves the surface of the earth, while 21% (100 minus 79) of the energy which leaves the surface of the earth enters the atmosphere by conduction, convection and evaporation according to climatologists. That's 3.3 times as much energy (21% ÷ 6.32%) entering the atmosphere through other means than carbon dioxide. So why is the carbon dioxide effect killing the kids and pets and not the larger source of the heat?
Saying that carbon dioxide is responsible for 0.24% of the energy entering the atmosphere is not saying that the result is significant temperature increase, which would be trillionths of a degree. The reason is because radiation removes the heat from carbon dioxide as fast as it is absorbed. One wave being absorbed is about the same strength as each wave being emitted, which is close to an instantaneous process. But conduction, convection and evaporation move massive amounts of heat which does not get instantly emitted as radiation.
If radiation really were so much stronger than conduction, convection and evaporation (79% vs. 21%), the air would be extremely cold, because radiation would remove the heat as fast as it entered the atmosphere. But the air stays warm near the surface of the earth, because radiation is extremely weak (1-3% vs. 97%).
The reason why nonscientists have no reason to consider an iota of criticism is because everyone knows that carbon dioxide absorbing radiation will produce heat. Anyone who thinks otherwise is considered to be a flat earther—at least a few years ago, but is now said to be anti-science. Al Gore skipped over the science in his movie assuming it was to trivial to take up. Even some Ph.D. scientists who should know better account for no other method for heat getting into the atmosphere than greenhouse gases absorbing radiation. Regardless of the infinite complexity of the fake science, missing the conduction, convection and evaporation is so ignorant that it says there is something wrong with where society is at.
Scientists are responsible for everything that is known on the subjects which they take up. It's not that hard to find out, since hundreds of persons are busy combing the material and discussing it. To miss conduction, convection and evaporation is not coming close to what scientists are supposed to be doing. It's also inexcusable for nonscientists to make such errors. Even journalists are supposed to learn how to responsibly represent a subject. It says society is drifting away from objective reality and the rationality required for determining what objective reality is.