Mr. Cockburn, it would behoove you to research the matter before making ridiculous statements. You are not a scientist, so I will make it simple: any matter with a temperature above absolute zero radiates heat in all directions. Thus your claim that greenhouse gases (only) radiate into space is patently false. It is equally false to say that any qualified scientist claims that the upper-level greenhouse gases heat the much warmer surface area, which would indeed violate the second thermodynamic law. What is true is that the radiation of the gases to the surface "negates" some of the radiation of surface-to-space. For dummies: less heat is lost from the surface.
Maybe you can follow me to the conclusion that less heat loss constitutes a "warming" of sorts. If you stand on the moon, with no atmosphere, it tends to get rather cold where the sun don't shine. That an atmosphere helps retain heat is a known fact, not a violation of thermodynamic laws, and that the composition of the atmosphere could have something to do with how much heat is retained would appear to be a logical conclusion.
Gerlich and Tscheusner's paper has been thoroughly refuted, as a quick search could have shown you, but you do not wish to know these things.
Our wasteful ways are using up fossil fuels at an alarming rate; we are stealing from the next generations, not just energy; a lot of valuable things can be made from oil rather than burn it in inefficient ways.
If we all decided to convert to less wasteful ways and it turned out carbon dioxide was not the problem, would that be such a tragedy? I, for one, in the absence of a better explanation for the warming (such little details as the Northwest Passage becoming ice-free for the first time in recorded history this last summer seem to elude your ilk) have adopted a less wasteful way of life...
As a personal question, what do you hope to achieve by mixing obviously false statements into your article? You are making a fool out of yourself, that's all.