Read the link I posted.
There has been no real dispute about it besides the effort of either backing it up or disproving it.
There has been no disapproval of it.
The greenhouse effect is named of the greenhouse, because it works pretty much the exact same way like greenhouses do, which obviously are functioning.
Look for an article saying: Greenhouses don't work, they are all a hoax;
No one would listen.
Why?
Because it's not a matter beyond common understanding and experience.
That is why people hide behind diffuse arguments like in this article.
The man who wrote it however isn't a capacity either, it's a journalist.
His idea of how it works is about as detailed as yours.
He must resort to the same tactic that you choose;
Citing other personal who by his saying did different things and who he claims to be capacities.
That's pretty disappointing as an explanation effort.
Than he makes obvious mistakes too.
If he knew the mathematic formulation of the physical problem and how to apply it, it would be simple for him, to either make an argument for or against the Greenhouse effect (besides that effort being a little silly, similar to negating gravity).
He prefers slandering individuals, because that vocabulary is understandable to everybody, even though not as transparent and easily noticeable.
I say it's all deception.
If you can judge I leave to you, but you don't have to.
No one forces you to listen to him, nor to Al Gore, who was highly honored by the scientific community for his minor public achievement, just because no one listens to a real expert in science anymore, there has to be a "pseudo scientific reporter" type next to the scientist who boils down what would be the real description into some sort of crap that could mean anything but uses everyday words.
the answer whoever is simple.
~+~
The difference between the European sight on it and the American is political.
The EU doesn't produce any significant amount of oil.
In this case you might take that as a safeguard from special interests.
The US lacks it.
There might be lobbies in the US who take a lot of influence in this matter in the US but certainly not on the behalf of bringing forth arguments in favor of accepting global warming as a reality.
There is no company profit, no product, no industry behind that sort of thing.
Seeing it from a removed viewpoint this has pretty frustrating results.
Especially because the EU would never want the US to be all that protective and national economy focused as it constantly is.
That is why it bought into Kyoto just for the sake of it, even after the US having pussied out, without any major complaint.
(Surely in this case for populist and special interest, in bright flying the colors of ignoring responsibility.)
No one can fix the problems of others, nations like people can just try to help.
If that nothing happens is the only constant, that's a sad waste of effort.