Global Warming Measurements Don't Account For 'Missing Heat'

This is not to say that every aspect of the Greenhouse Theory is known to 50 parts per billion uncertainty, it is to put your analogy into numerical context, because as we here all know, it cannot be science if it is not quantified. So, sure, its mass changes. AND we can measure that change, small as it is.

"My point, even something as cut and dried as gravity is being revised as we learn more. Why not climate change?"

Sure. That's a fine point, except for the implication that anybody has suggested halting research into Climate Change. All legitimate scientists accept the same basic facts and proceed from these:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#S2
And NOBODY suggests we already know EVERYTHING. Yet, we do KNOW some things.

If you want to have a worthwhile dialog, it can begin when you concede the proven facts of the Greenhouse Theory, and then enumerate which aspect(s) of the scientific consensus you dispute and why. It is simply not an intellectually honest position for you to dismiss out of hand all of the 97.5% of scientists who have passed peer review and published valid climate science.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=5&t=209&&a=17

To be taken seriously and respected, you must have good reasons in our society for assertions of fact. I have 150 years of accepted science. So far, you have only uninformed snark.
About Climate Change
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost