I'm sorry, Ann, but think of this analogy. If the atmosphere were a 100 story building, the amount of CO2 that humanity contributes to it would be about the level of the linoleum on the first floor.
If you want to look at large amounts of CO2 dumped into the atmosphere, look at natural sources, such as volcanoes. Even that CO2 amounts to a tiny fraction of our atmosphere. One of the most significant greenhouse gases, one that really does make an actual difference in temperature, is water vapor, and I doubt that you would want to get rid of that, since without water Earth really would be more like Venus.
One of the glaring variations from the computer projections of AGW is the absence of the "hot spot" that was predicted. A marker of AGW was supposed to be a large mass of hot air above the tropic regions -- one which meteorologists who are looking for such signs are completely unable to find. I have a copy of a graph that was in a recent report on the heating curve of the Earth. It had three possible heating projections from the IPCC report, all rising, one projection of committed warming that would take place if the CO2 in the atmosphere remained constant (which remained more or less level) and two showing actual readings -- one from ground based meteorological instruments, and the other from satellite based instruments, both of which were taken since the original IPCC computer projections. Both the graph lines showing the actual readings revealed a drop in temperatures.
Clearly there is something going on that we don't completely understand, and that is enough to tell us that we had better learn more than we know right now before we do more harm than good.
Nan
