Which of these testable science facts do you disagree with:
AGW is not science but the belief that GW is a direct result of humans, something that is not provable as there are far too many factors involved, unknowns, and incomplete data sets and data timspans. Longer duration data timespans are available with the caveat that the accuracy is questionable due to assumptions involved regarding the data, etc. The only real data set is at most 100 years old, but even then most GW folks will discount the sensor data in a good portion of that as being in-accurate for a variety of reasons, making the usable data set
- A lot of visible light hits the earth.
- Visible light pass through CO2 with no interaction.
- Visible strikes something, IR is emitted
- CO2 absorbs energy from IR
- Human put more CO2 into the atmosphere then can be absorbed through the normal cycle.
- Extra CO2 means more energy held in the lower atmosphere.
So you've provided a simple, not entirely testable (by average tester) set of steps for testing for one specific thing (CO2) out of many factors, most of which we have zero control over but any one of which can easily outweigh how much impact CO2 has. You still haven't shown that it is humans that causes most of the CO2, or even contributed to GW in any significant way.
And that's the problem for AGW - there's nothing that substantially concludes what is causing GW to start with, let alone being able to track that human activity.
Before you can prove humans are doing it, you have to first prove what is causing it, and the cause for GW is still very much up in the air. Until that is settled and concluded without any kind of AGW bias (as is prevalent) than determining that humans are the cause cannot happen.
"but because we should be good stewards of the resources around us"
Why? if you don't think we can do harm to it, why do we need to be good stewards?