Can you prove that CO2 (an essential trace gas naturally found in the atmosphere--at far less than 1%) in its tiny concentration has any perceptable effect on the atmospheric temperature? Bear in mind--the mere fact that a tiny fraction of a percentage exists and a belief in GW are proof of nothing at beyond the ambient CO2 level and the possession of a belief.

No, I can't prove it. The inference rests on the known properties of CO2 and the correlation between its rise and the rise in temperatures. This is good evidence, but as I admitted earlier, not close to 100% conclusive. Now let me ask you: can you prove that the temperature rise is entirely due to something else? If not, why do you assume it can't be the CO2?

The "free atmosphere" of Mars seems to be primarily CO2, is it causing wild uncintrolled heating of the Martian climate?

The atmosphere of Mars is very thin, and it is much further from the sun. It's probably warmer than it would be if there were less CO2, though, don't you agree?

Char, about 99% of our atmosphere is nitrogen, oxygen, and argon--a fraction of the remainder is CO2. Can you point to "blind experimental studies" proving that such a minute amount of CO2 in an environment with high water content will cause unrestricted warming? I can envision several ways to set up such an experiment with two comparable environments--one free of CO2 and the other with a minute amount present.

By all means, run your experiments. I googled the topic and the first page didn't show any, although there was a site describing science fair projects like that. By the way, no one is claiming "unrestricted" warming. They're just saying warming, which may or may not start a positive feedback loop. It's as though we're running an uncontrolled experiment on the globe, Duke, and I don't see why you think that's a smart thing to do. Why wouldn't the "conservative" approach be to try to minimize such change?