[flagged]
You mix that claim with an implication about people who don't know that number off the top of their heads, but: - work on sustainability for feelgood - are independently wealthy otherwise.
I don't understand exactly what you're implying but it doesn't seem very generalizable. Society can face arbitrarily complicated threats, to counter which we can create incentives even for those who don't know the details.
How to get political agreement on the important threats and the best (effective / fair / ...) incentives is an open problem.
If you want to understand the effect of the trace gases from first principles, you can read more about it under "Effective temperature of the Earth" at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law . It also links to the Wikipedia page about the greenhouse effect, which you'll appreciate more after reading about the Stefan Boltzmann law first.
You seem to be doing the opposite of your question, knowing the answer to the question and then concluding (without knowledge of how the whole system works) that since it's so low that it couldn't be responsible for drastic changes.
As for the rest of your stance, I asked ChatGPT: https://chatgpt.com/share/6776fe8b-8bd0-800e-875f-bae617ccfd...
Duck me, as if that hair-splitting makes a huge difference. I dare say there's a 0.04% difference between the two.
You flaunt your superficial intellect but you're still ignorant as hell, using it to nitpick. Did you figure out the Stefan-Boltzmann law? Or is it yet again somebody's job to convince you? Oh noo the wind blew your fence down so you were denied the chance to be proven wrong, therefore you're still this smart and correct man? Whatever saves your ego, man.
For future reference, it's spelled "ad hominem".
And yet you keep coming back with nothing but ad hominem (cheers spellcheck guy). Right, I'm gonna leave it there; it's been emotional. All the best.