The last 1/10 of an inch of a football field dominates everything?

7. Carbon dioxide accounts for a very small part of the Earth’s overall atmosphere and those levels have fluctuated throughout the Earth’s history. Carbon dioxide currently accounts for only .038 percent of our planet’s atmosphere. And human-made carbon dioxide only makes up about 3 percent of that. Put another way, if all the gases in the atmosphere were represented by the length of a football field, only the last 1/10 of an inch would be carbon emissions caused by humans. It’s hard to believe that such a small amount would supposedly have such huge consequences.

Assuming that Carbon Dioxide is the only effect of humanity. The ozone layer seemed more like a causal effect, although according to reports the Ozone layer is mending itself after less (whatever the gas is called)

Hydrofluorocarbons have a clear effect on the ozone, which has recovered after they were replaced.
For the tiny man made portion of CO2 to drive the proven increase in atmospheric CO2, natural CO2 production and absorption have to be in perfect balance....then the man made portion, small as it is, accumulates. That's the global warming argument. 
But another line of reasoning is CO2 is the dependent variable, driven by temperature which releases more of it.
Yet  another  argument is CO2 'sinks' will become more effective with more CO2 to absorb. So with an imbalance there might be a temporary increase in CO2, but as jungles grow and they are growing now, the CO2 will get absorbed and we reach a new balance. I like that theory because it seems so unlikely that you get perfect balance in the absence of a compensating mechanism
All interesting stuff, but we know so little. Here's another unknown  factoid:

"If implemented, the Obama administration’s Climate Action Plan would reduce global temperatures by only 0.01, or one one-hundredth of a degree Celsius.  President Obama’s former deputy secretary for Fossil Energy at the Department of Energy, Charles McConnell, said that the EPA’s carbon rules will have only a minor impact on global climate change. Yet regulations will cost billions of dollars and jeopardize thousands of jobs."

The Kyoto Treaty was also a bust, shifting the temperature curve by just 4 years at the end of the century, with a massive cost.

It's a complicated subject.

There are just so many grey areas in this debate! So many agendas! It is almost impossible to decipher the information accurately. We need some uber wealthy and genuinely independent individual/big business with no financial interest in the result, to do a massive and complete study on the matter. Unfortunately that will never happen, because without considerable financial incentive, no person or business would have any real reason to invest the massive amounts of money it would require to finance such a venture. Bunny huggers = no capital, and Wealthy individuals and big businesses = Not bunny huggers!  

 CO2 is the least of our problems. Other gasses, heavy metal poisoning of our water. Plastic and mercury in the water and oceans. Phosphates and other salts from agricultural fertilizers are seeping into our rivers. Electronic waste, including batteries, energy saving bulbs, the list is endless, yet the focus on CO2, the very thing that's making plants grow. This is one of the largests scams in history, if not THE largest! we are poisoning our planet in the name of the environment!

 Bump!

 Figuring out what is happening to temperatures....separating out man made, natural cycle, solar cycle, temporary phenomena like El Niño.....is one part of the problem.

The next, which has barely been touched is assessing the effects of warming. Drop 3 degrees and historically people die and populations shrink. So again the warming argument is we are perfect right where we are....colder is worse, warmer is worse. But there is no evidence that mankind has ever suffered in warmer times, quite the reverse. Perhaps while some populations will suffer, mankind as a whole will be better off with a few degrees of warming.

And that leads into the financial questions. Do we determine this in a way where nobody is worse off.....or where mankind as a whole is better off. Who pays for what we decide?
It's obvious this will never be rationally decided. So the status quo will continue. The markets will make rational economic decisions. Politicians will window dress, as in the latest accord that lowers temps by one hundredth of a degree, and declare victory. Consumers will continue to burn oil, until there are no more miracles like fracking left and we finally realize just how precious the stuff really is.