The Global Warming Controversy

Both sides of the global warming argument agree that there is such a thing as global warming. One side contends that man's activities have a significant effect on increasing global warming. The other side contends that man's activities have an insignificant effect. The contentions of both sides are theoretical and speculative, rather than provable.
Let's call the group which contends that man's activities are significant "Man Induced". Let's call the group which contends that man's activities are insignificant "Nature Induced".
Both sides also agree that global warming is an increase in the surface temperature of the Earth and that the temperature increase is caused by the Earth's atmosphere inhibiting loss of heat from the Earth surface to the stratosphere. From there, the two sides differ significantly in their speculation as follows:
The Nature Induced Group asserts that all gaseous components of the atmosphere have resistance to the passage of heat. That is, all gaseous components slow down the loss of heat from the Earth's surface to the stratosphere. The Earth is also on a daily schedule of daytime/nighttime. During the daytime, there is net heat gain from the sun. During nighttime, there is net loss of heat from the Earth surface to the stratosphere. With the presence of the heat insulation atmosphere, the heat loss from the Earth surface is reduced during the nighttime, leading to a higher Earth surface temperature. All atmospheric gases participate in this heat insulation effect. The effect of each gas is dependent on its thermal resistivity and it's concentration (amount) in the atmosphere. The thermal resistivities of the various atmospheric gases are not greatly different, but their concentrations in the atmosphere are. The total Greenhouse effect of inhibiting heat loss from the earth surface is primarily due to nitrogen and oxygen, which exist in high concentrations. The Nature Induced theorists assert that the Greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide is insignificant because of its very low concentration (amount). In the atmosphere.
The Man Induced Group asserts that heat loss from the Earth surface is inhibited by heat absorption of only complex molecules in the atmosphere. Nitrogen and oxygen are said to be noncomplex, because they are diatomic molecules, it is claimed that they have no capacity for heat absorption. Conversely, a triatomic molecule, such as carbon dioxide, is said to be a complex molecule, which has the ability to absorb heat. Thus, it has a profound effect for heat absorption, even though it exists in a very minor concentration in the atmosphere. Because of this profound effect of heat absorption by carbon dioxide, it is asserted that all efforts should be made to control any increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, by reducing the burning of carbon containing fossil fuels.
From here, I present my own partiality to the two theories.
I will not try to punch any holes in the Nature/Thermal Resistivity theory. I will leave that to the Man Induced/Absorption advocates.
We have somewhat of an analogy, when we consider the atmosphere of Mars. The mass of Mar's atmosphere is 25 teratonnes, compared to Earth's 5148 teratonnes. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the respective atmospheres is 96% for Mars versus 0.04% for Earth. Therefore, the mass of carbon dioxide on Mars is 24 teratonnes versus Earth's 2 teratonnes. In spite of the fact that Mars contains 10 times as much carbon dioxide as a Earth, it's nighttime temperature falls to -100°F. Mars is also somewhat farther from the Sun then Earth, but the mass carbon dioxide comparison implies that carbon dioxide has no special properties and further implies that the high masses of nitrogen and oxygen on earth do have a greenhouse effect. This is, In spite of claims to the contrary by Man Induced/Absorption advocates.
I also have some problems with the mechanistic theory of absorption advocated by Man Induced/Absorption advocates. These advocates hold that carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere will absorb heat and thus disallow it to be lost to the stratosphere. The logical consequence of this is that there would tend to be a cooler Earth and a warmer atmosphere, although the atmospheric heat could dissipate back to the Earth to average out the temperature. But if carbon dioxide molecules have this high propensity to absorb heat, why would it then release it to dissipate back to Earth?
Even though a carbon dioxide molecule may have a high propensity to absorb heat, there must be some maximum heat load it can hold. That maximum could be easily determined in a physics laboratory, but I have seen nothing on this. Assuming there is a maximum, which the molecule can hold, any subsequent heat to which it is exposed would be unaffected and could pass-through as a loss to the stratosphere. Considering now the multitude of carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere, the total amount of heat absorbed would be a function of the number of molecules times the maximum heat content. In addition, any increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration would lead to an increased absorption of heat. I believe this is consistent with the Absorption theorists' position. However, we are still faced with the supposition that if carbon dioxide is a great absorber of heat, why would it then release its heat back to Earth? It is even more likely that any heat absorbed by carbon dioxide molecule would be converted to a transitional form of energy, which we know leads to decomposition. However, there is no indication of free carbon and oxygen formation in the atmosphere.
We always have to come back to the claim that carbon dioxide can absorb heat, as measured by an increase in temperature, while diatomic molecules, such as nitrogen and oxygen cannot. This is obviously not true, since pure oxygen and nitrogen can be heated, as measured by an increase in temperature, no less than can carbon dioxide.