What gas do you think is responsible for trapping more (needed) heat than any other?

NASA claims to know a LOT about "global warming"  Oh, my bad: that's the old, broke term.  The wokies scrapped that term after a string of record-cold winters about a dozen years ago made lots of Americans think the entire theory was...umm, what's the term?  Oh yeah: horseshit.

Anyway, one of NASA's gazillions of web pages is one titled "Atmospheric methane."  Here's what it says:

Methane is an important trace gas in Earth’s atmosphere. Even though it only makes up 0.00017% (1.7 parts per million by volume) of the the atmosphere, methane traps a significant amount of heat, helping the planet remain warm and habitable. 

    Methane forms when organic matter decomposes in oxygen-poor environments, such as marshes, rice paddies, or the digestive systems of cattle. It also comes from combustion (burning) of carbon-based fuels.

Wait...methane "helps the planet remain warm and...habitable"?  You mean, if it wasn't for methane the Earth would be colder--maybe a LOT colder, possibily making it...UNinhabitable?

Wow, maybe methane in the atmosphere is a good thing, eh?

Oh wait:  At the top of the page NASA says 

"This page contains archived content and is no longer being updated. At the time of publication, it represented the best available science."

NASA doesn't show when the page was created or retired, but the best evidence is that it was created in 2005.  And unless someone screwed up (it's NASA so we know that's a non-trivial possibility) it's a fair guess that they really believed methane helped keep the planet "habitable."

If so, since methane has now become the latest "crisis" pushed by the wokies, then between 2005 and today NASA's "experts" must have found some major new thing about the Earth that no one had discovered before to make that true, eh?  Gosh, what do ya suppose it was?

Leftist, globalist politics, comrade.

And here's another fact for the Washington Post Science Club (members: zero): NASA just told you methane comprised 1.7 parts per million of our atmosphere.  Got any idea what fraction of the same atmosphere is CO2?

About 410 parts per million.  In other words, the atmosphere contains about 240 times more CO2 than methane.  Now it's true that methane is a more effective "greenhouse gas than CO2.  But by what factor?

Let's see what the leftists at the EPA say.  On a page titled "Importance of methane" they say "Methane is the second most abundant anthropogenic GHG after carbon dioxide."   Most young Americans have no idea what "anthropogenic" means, so they ignore that and conclude (incorrectly) that methane is the second most awful contributor to duh dread "global warming."  So when some dipshit politician says "We have to reduce U.S. cattle herds by 90% because if we don't, everyone on Earth will die!, young Americans buy it.

The next sentence on the EPA page is "Methane is more than 25 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere."

For the moment let's assume that's true.  Then because there's 240 times more CO2 in the air than methane, it suggests that methane traps far less heat than CO2--about a tenth as much.

But both these gases are of little effect compared to the heat-trapping effect of ordinary water vapor.  Among the gazillions of web pages created by duh experts at NASA is one on the relative importance of water vapor to global warming.  NASA admits water vapor is a "greenhouse gas" and say it accounts for "about half" of global warming.  Other sites say 60 to 70%, which is significantly more.  And that's a HUGE difference.  Why is such a huge difference in those figures if everything about global warming is supposedly "settled science," eh?  But either way, that NASA page stunningly claims water vapor--which they just said accounts for "about half" of global warming--merely "amplifies Earth's greenhouse effect." 

 Here's a NASA analysis of the gases in our atmosphere.  So where's the water vapor?  They admit water vapor accounts for either "about half" (or perhaps 70%) of retaining heat to make the Earth habitable, and yet they claim it merely "amplifies the effect" of the minor contributors?  That's pure propaganda--like saying evaporation from the oceans' surface merely "amplifies" evaporation from Lake Michigan.  Pure propaganda, carefully designed to mislead you.

Reason: As should be obvious, humans can't do jack about water evaporating from the surface of the world's oceans.  So you could screw around trying to reduce global CO2 from 410 parts per million to, say, 390 ppm (which the U.S. can't do), and it wouldn't change ANYTHING by a measurable amount.

Here's another clue that NASA is pushing pure propaganda:  They wail that while "some gases" can remain in the upper atmosphere--trapping oodles of heat!--for decades "or even centuries!," water vapor is "a different animal."

Ah, do tell, NASA lackeys.  And here ya go:

By contrast [to the "centuries in the atmosphere"], a molecule of water vapor stays in the atmosphere just nine days, on average. It then gets recycled as rain or snow. Its amounts don’t accumulate, despite its much larger relative quantities.

"SEE, comrade?  Duh gases we claim are the main greenhouse gases--duh ones we are demanding that you stop emitting, by obeying our ORDER that you stop driving gas-powered cars and stop eating meat--last decades in the upper atmosphere, but a molecule of that silly li'l "amplifier," water vapor, only stays in the atmosphere a mere NINE DAYS, after which it falls out as "rain or snow" and doesn't do any more damage.  Got it?"

So the average American compares the "centuries" that some gases stay in the air to the nine DAYS that a water molecule stays in the atmosphere and concludes--as the experts intended--that water vapor has virtually no effect on "global warming."

But here's the hook:  The average amount of water vapor in the air doesn't drop, but stays essentially constant.  So when NASA tells you water only stays in the air for nine days they're trying to get you to IGNORE the effect of water vapor--because they know water vapor is the MAIN greenhouse gas, and that humans can't do anything to reduce the amount of water vapor in the air.

Starting to see how the propaganda works yet?  "If we wanna get the rubes to buy electric cars and give up their meat and milk and cheese, we have to convince 'em water vapor has no effect, and that CO2 and methane are doing all the scary stuff.  But how can we do that when anyone with a STEM degree can so easily show we're lying?"

"Simple, Mr. president: we just give 'em the ol' razzle-dazzle, because not a single Mainstream Media outlet will tell 'em the truth!  And we can get the Media to claim that the half-dozen websites that are telling the truth are just pushing 'Russian disinformation' or 'right-wing violent extremist scare stories' or something.  Don't worry, when we unleash the media and the Disinformation Board we'll have the rubes in tears with guilt about driving to the grocery store!"

Here's another gem from NASA:

Increases in atmospheric water vapor also amplify the global water cycle. They contribute to making wet regions wetter and dry regions drier.

There's that phrase "also amplify" again.  Hmmm....  If that strikes you as odd, congratulations.  If there's more water vapor in the air, it has to quickly fall back to earth as rain or snow.  ("Nine days," remember?)   Now, while local wind patterns--sometimes lasting for years--can make some places either wetter or drier, ON AVERAGE more water vapor means more rain, even if not everyplace gets some.  But to claim that more water vapor CAUSES some places to become drier isn't logical.  (To which the so-called "experts" will immediately reply "It's too complicated for you to understand."  Oh yeah, sure.)

So let's review:  Water vapor accounts for up to 70% of the heat-retaining effect of the atmosphere.  (NASA makes this look smaller by saying "about half."  There's nothing we can do about the amount of water vapor in the air, so NASA overtly tries to get you to ignore its effects, and to focus on CO2 and the even smaller effect of methane (roughly a tenth as much as CO2).

And you believe them.  Because you don't know any better, and you literally cannot believe they'd lie to you about something that, if implemented, will make your kids' lives a lot closer to third-world than you could believe possible.