Initially, someone from the Australian Dept of Climate Change emailed me about this article which has been doing the rounds here in Australia. Then a few others queried me about it including a scientist from England of all places:

http://preventdisease.com/news/11/012411_inform_public_co2.shtml

We don't usually respond to specific documents these days, focusing on general arguments, but I wonder if it's worth looking at this one.

Don't we have rebuttals to all, except the Australian CO2 emissions, and ozone hole bollocks?. 

It's a re-posting of a pdf file linked to at the bottom of the page. This seems to be the author??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregg_Thompson_%28astronomer%29

Amusing quote:

"Gas molecules fly around and are constantly colliding with other gas molecules so they immediately lose any excess heat to other molecules during these collisions."

Heat lost to other molecules??
Where does it go? :-)

Molecules do collide with each other and excess energy is released this way instead of radiatively. But thermodynamic equilibrium requires that all the fluxes must balance and you also have the inverse process, GHG molecules thrown in the excited vibratinal state by collisions.
In the end, you have a constant amount of molecules in the excited state that will radiate their excess energy away following Planck's low times emissivity, which is what is seen measuring IR from the surface looking up.

As for Thompson, he pictures hmself (among many other things) as a "climate researcher" but apparently he's an amateur astronomer. Indeed, what he writes can not come from a climate scientist, however skeptic he might be.

More like a climate "skeptic" blog reader.  His document is really nothing more than the typical garbage you can read on any "skeptic" blog.  He sure did a thorough job though.  Took me 3 hours to debunk all the myths he put together.  In just four pages too - I guess it doesn't take much space to repeat misinformation with no supporting evidence!