In don't even know where to start addressing that. Since you posted the propaganda, and obviously do not understand the sciences to believe why i would claim as I do, it's probably pointless.
Yes... Propaganda.
It starts with a rolling mist, which is not the same as H2O in the atmosphere you cant see.
Notice that levels are never assigned.
He states something like 66% to 85% of the greenhouse effect is from various form of water in the air, but then claims CO2 has a greater effect because it is well mixed and H2O is only in the troposphere. CO2 having a greater volume does not mean it has a greater effect. Why didn't he say that the consensus is that CO2 is thought to have 95 to 26% of the greenhouse effect?
Bringing up extreme views of "deniers" at 95% (90%?) then giving a top range of 85% is also su ions. Not a whole lot of difference between 85% and 95%.
Calling H2O a feedback from CO2 forcing (implied) is ridiculous, especially after correctly pointing out H2O has a loose boundary of percentage in the air by temperature. Not only is CO2 the primary greenhouse gas, but temperature is also increased by the sun, which isn't poi9nted out. To say that the claimed 0.6C assumed increase makes a large enough change in H2O concentration to have an increased radiative forcing is laughable. Assuming we change the equatorial air from around 40C to 41C, you may get around a 5% increase in water vapor. this is pretty meaningless when at these temperatures, it is already near the horizontally flat part of the logarithmic curve. Now in the polar regions, where it is claimed the air may be a couple degrees warmer, the change may be around 10%. This may be from increased H2O, but as he pointed out, the percentage is around 0.2% in the polar regions.
Where does he make any claim about where the increased temperature, enough to affect H2), is from Co2?
He brings out facts, clumps them together, and without directly lying... lets the viewer get the wrong impression.
It's funny. So few studies on H2O forcing. I was looking for a clear graph to post, concentration vs. forcing, and didn't find any. Anyway, these changes are more notable at low levels that already high levels.
When I do look for H2O forcing, a common theme I find is it isn't studied because it isn't man made. At the same time, they claim extra forcing from temperature. Again, is it too much to ask to make sure they are not including natural forcing in their results when looking for anthropogenic forcing?