Your refutation is incorrect. Yes, there are other greenhouse gasses, but they add to the effect of CO2. By the way, I never specifically pointed out C02, although one of the Wikipedia quotes I included used it as an example. I wanted to limit the size of the quotes. Here is another reference
showing various greenhouse gasses and their impact on the greenhouse effect:
By their percentage contribution to the greenhouse effect on Earth the four major gases are:
- water vapor, 36–70%
- carbon dioxide, 9–26%
- methane, 4–9%
- ozone, 3–7%
The major non-gas contributor to the Earth's greenhouse effect, clouds, also absorb and emit infrared radiation and thus have an effect on radiative properties of the atmosphere.
Frankly, I'm not completely sure what you are saying because you are incoherent: "the effect of CO2 is problematic, because it is mixing with other gasses and that makes a difference". Mixing how? Chemically? Via radiation? Interacting with clouds?
"... if we only were going to get warming from the CO2, then there would be little to worry about." Could you quote a source on that? Did you make it up? How about "There was a study in 2006 that further refined the effect that CO2 had on the atmosphere (narrowed the error bars)."? Any references for that one either? Did you mean to imply that reduced error bars mean that the effects of global climate change are not important? What are you talking about?
Now let's examine "We are still improving the computer models. If the science were settled, they would be much, much better at predicting." This is just flat out wrong. The quality of a simulation is not solely determined by knowledge of the basic science. For huge chaotic systems like global climate, the vast computational resources required limit predictive results. Furthermore, there is still a lot we don't understand, for example the effect of clouds, or the interaction between ocean circulation and climate. Note that these have nothing to do with the physics of greenhouse gasses, which is the nominal point under consideration.
Both climate modeling and computational resources are getting better on a yearly basis, as you pointed out. That doesn't mean the current state of the art is useless.
To conclude, you called me "kind of ignorant". I take personal offense to that. I just went to some effort to demonstrate that your are a thoughtless fool who seems incapable of logical argument and plays fast and loose with facts. Before you insult your betters you should examine your own mental resources. At this point all you have shown is that you are an intellectual failure.