1. Nope sorry, CO2 is non polar. First paragraph. Doesn't make your argument wrong but it doesn't look good either.
https://sciencetrends.com/is-carbon-dioxide-co2-polar-or-nonpolar/amp/
2. Visible light accounts for half of the solar spectrum.
3. The radiation that reaches the Earth's surface is reflected by snow, ice etc... The rest is absorbed. This heat created by shortwave radiation absorption is re-emitted as longwave, some escapes the atmosphere and some remains, thus heating the lower atmosphere and making this planet livable. Read up on the "Earths Radiation Budget" for a better understanding.
4. Now, the composition of our atmosphere warms the planet naturally by reflecting some of this radiation back at the earth, maintaining livable, comfortable conditions. Increasing the concentration of these gasses inhibits the escape of warming long-wave radiation and increased the temp of the lower atmosphere.
5. CO2 allows short wave radiation from the sun to pass, while absorbing long-wave from the Earth. This is how it is known to behave through scientific observation.
6. Long-wave reflection is not unidirectional, I stated 50:50 as an example, 50 in and 50 out. That's being generous. Note my use of the word partially.
7. I am familiar with Boltzmann but not enough to refute his claims, I'll have to read.
EDIT: After doing a bit of reading on the stefan-boltzmann law it appears that it cannot be applied to the Earth since the earth is not a black body with a single radiating layer. In fact, the Earth radiates heat from a variety of heights depending on wavelength.
8. Newton's 2nd law of thermodynamics, entropy. You should have know this is what I was referring to given the context of the conversation.
9. No one is claiming the world is going to burn up. Nor has anyone ever. There will however be consequences, preparing for them is important. Denying they will exist is ignorant.
10. If 2020 science existed 600 years ago we would have a VERY good idea of what caused the mini ice age. Still it is irrelevant.
11. Yes, it is difficult to put a quantifiable number on the impact of CO2 when a variety of other gasses, activities have a part to play as well. It is afterall the entirety of our world, very complex and hard to quantify. A chain of complexities.
I am a bit miffed as to why a self described authority in a scientific field is finding himself at odds with 100% of the authorities in the scientific field we are currently debating?
You seem to have a lot of questions about the science. I hope you are taking what I am saying to heart.