If what you claim is true then post a link to where your model has been used and a paper published in a credible scientific journal. Diplomas by the way are a long way from a degree and certainly a very long way from a masters or doctorate (which are about the bare minimum qualifications of any climate scientists). Maybe you could provide some links to the journals with papers which show that methane is much more important than CO2? As I said I am happy to discuss the science but it would be nice if one of you deniers actually posted links to the scientific papers that you are making your conclusions from. As you would know if you really are involved in science, as you claim, the qualifications of an author of a paper are extremely important as is the process of being published in credible scientific journals. If you are unable to verify the qualifications of an author and where they received those qualifications and they have only published their paper on the internet without any peer review then it should be viewed with extreme scepticism. So many of the supposed 'scientific' papers on the internet are anything but and are often posted by 'scientists' who received their qualifications from some fundamentalist christian institution in the deep south of the US. Would you trust such qualifications?
Where did you get your diploma from? As the following article attests it's really not hard to get a diploma or degree that requires little, if any, academic application.
diploma mill - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
(I know it's just an opinion piece but it makes some very good points)
Methane is without doubt another important greenhouse gas and some of the largest contributors are the gas and coal industries. Efforts to reduce CO2 emissions will also flow on to help reduce methane emissions. One of the biggest emitters of methane though are wetlands. And recent warming in Siberia is turning what was once permafrost into swamps and wetlands. More warming will see more methane released which will excacerbate the greenhouse warming which will also liberate more CO2 from the oceans which will excacerbate warming. It is this scenario of runaway warming that is feared. The warming will continue until the ice caps are gone and our sea levels will inundate most of the worlds' major cities and vasts amounts of what is currently excellent agricultural land and causing the movement of billions of people. Plus major variations in the climate in what are currently the worlds' main food producing areas. This would obviously be catastrophic would it not? We know the earth can be a lot warmer than it is currently. Maybe some even want it to be warmer. What's important though is how quickly it changes. If it is reasonably gradual then we'll adapt a lot better than if it is rapid. We know the climate can change quite rapidly.
I have never claimed that I know everything because of some sheet of paper I have. More importantly I think is that I don't claim to know better than the most respected scientists in the world on this subject. It's people who do that, especially those that don't have any specific knowledge or qualifications in the subject, that I get tired of.