Opaque to long-wave? No transmission whatever?
Transparent to short-wave? No absorption whatever?
What about water vapor? What are its properties?
Is there more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2?
How would that affect one's opinion about what is causing global warming?
What do "most scientists" believe explains the lack of warming during the last decade and a half?
How can the various models of the earth's climate be valid if they all fail to predict the present situation?
If the climate models predicting global warming also predict heating of the upper atmosphere over the equator, what does it tells us about the models if the heating over the equator does not exist?
Science is not supposed to be about choosing the results that support one's theory and ignoring the results that do not.
Pardon me for the use of the terms “transparent” and “opaque”. I would have hoped that generalities would suffice to illustrate the properties of CO2 and not devolve into a semantic argument. That said, I made no mention of water vapor (which incidentally a green-house gas), nor its role in atmospheric physics; I made no mention of global warming, of what “most scientists” believe, of earth’s climate and the predictive modeling associated with climatology, or the philosophy of science.
What I said was (and again allow me to apologize for generalizing, “One of the immutable qualities of CO2 is that it is transparent to short-wave energy and opaque to long-wave. In other words, light will easily pass through it, bur heat is absorbed and reradiated. This has been known since the 20s and is easily demonstrated.”
I hope that clears things up for you. Are we done?