OK, I looked through that and even though I am involved in paleo-climate research from the perspective of siting core holes, I have not read widely enough on this. So, me going after this is a little like me debating a creationist...I'd probably lose because they are prepared and I am not...they can ask questions that I don't know the answers to. But, none the less, I'll take a shot at this: I think there is something wrong with their numbers on natural vs man-related additions to CO2. If the numbers are correct, then the natural additions are steady-state...that CO2 can be removed from the system (for example, absorbed by oceans and deposited in deep sea sediments, and also by plants) at the same rate as the additions. The extra by man accummlates and virtually no serious scientist would dispute that the measured increase in CO is almost all man-related.

Next...Michael Chrichton (sp?) in his fiction novel State of Fear used arguments like your link in his appendix...and also had footnotes that are not fiction (but are out of context)...and he was a few steps behind your link because he just compared the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere to other gases by talking about yardage on a football field...

but, it is the small changes that are important....if a fraction of a percent change in total greenhouse gases causes an increase in temperature of a 1/2 deg C, then the atmosphere can hold more water vapor, which as you point out is a greenhouse gas. Climate scientists debate whether increased cloudiness might reflect enough solar radiation back to space to compensate some for increasing greenhouse gases...and this is one of the big uncertainties in predictions and models.

I found your post and State of Fear somewhat interesting because they are a caution that people like me who are exposed to the field but not experts do have to be a little careful with claims: I should say instead what Margaret Leinen, a director of the National Science Foundation, said here in Jamestown R.I. in a talk to the public before moving to her new job: about 1000 climate scientists think this is serious and 4 do not, but the 4 get equal time with the 1000....

I don't think it is a total conspiracy, although there was some interesting stuff in State of Fear about scientists getting the results they expect to get, even when it is some controlled, random experiment. But, I'd like to see an expert refute all that along with your link....

Chris