Bart,
You forgot to mention the great uncertainty about the role of increased water vapour and clouds in a changing climate. It's not well understood at all. You're not biased by any chance, are you? 
The uncertainty is diminishing as the Scientific understanding improves, and things may turn out to be a little worse than previously thought ...
The following organization, which I think you'd agree is fairly reliable, is at least attempting to address this issue, but much uncertainty still remains.
International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html
Here are a few relevant quotes from the linked article:
"If the climate should change, then clouds would also change, altering all of the effects listed above. What is important is the sum of all these separate effects, the net radiative cooling or warming effect of all clouds on Earth. For example, if Earth's climate should warm due to the greenhouse effect, the weather patterns and the associated clouds would change; but it is not known whether the resulting cloud changes would diminish the warming (a negative feedback) or enhance the warming (a positive feedback)."
Well, recent research hints at an answer as Science gains a better understanding. It's likely to have a slight negative effect, resulting in
less cooling.
Aerosol emissions may not cool the planet as much as we thought
They lead to slightly less watery clouds, which means less cooling than suspected.https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/08/aerosol-emissions-may-not-cool-the-planet-as-much-as-we-thought/and an article in Nature about that study:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02287-zAs regards the heat-trapping effect of CO2, one needs to get this into perspective. On average, every group of 2,500 molecules in the atmosphere contains only one molecule of CO2. The analogy of covering oneself with a blanket, which is often used to describe the heat-trapping effect of CO2, represents a huge exaggeration. A more precise analogy would be covering oneself with a very fine netting. If the threads of the netting represented the CO2, they would be so fine you would need a powerful magnifying glass to see them. How warm do you think such a net would keep you? 
Your analogy doesn't hold. The trapping of heat that would otherwise have escaped into space, also causes the most abundant gases in the atmosphere to heat up. So it's not a net, but a closed enveloping layer of warmer gas.
In fact, the huge effects that a relatively small amount of CO2 has on the global temperature should cause even more concern. Without the (as stressed by you) small amount of CO2, our earth would not have an average air temperature of about 15 °C but be several degrees colder.
It wouldn't be quite as bad as on our moon (average surface temperature is -36.5 °C, and approx. the same distance from the sun as our earth) which has absolutely no atmosphere to mitigate the amplitudes and distribute the heat over its surface, but that situation does show us the importance of an atmosphere, and why its dangerous to mess it up.
Temperatures on the moon are very hot in the daytime, about 100 degrees C. At night, the lunar surface gets very cold, as cold as minus 173 degrees C. This wide variation is because Earth's moon has no atmosphere to hold in heat at night or prevent the surface from getting so hot during the day, and the surface is a poor conductor for the distribution of heat.
So again, I suggest to not blindly believe what deniers want you to believe. Instead, follow what respected scientists are saying, and be assured that their understanding of the issues is improving all the time. The biggest variable in models is becoming; What are
we going to do about it.
Cheers,
Bart
