True enough. Unless I missed something (possible) I'm still waiting on a response to this one.

The charts below are just some of the things I've been looking at, and I'm drawing a somewhat different conclusion than the mainstream.

My conclusion is that while CO2 does have a greenhouse effect, that for the most part, changes in temperature drive CO2 in the atmosphere, not the other way around. While most ice core evidence is too fuzzy to know one way or the other, a lot of evidence has come out showing that the temperature was the leader.

There's simple logic backing that, too. I can think of many ways temperature changes could change CO2 in the environment. I can also think of many ways temperature on the Earth could change over geological time, including astronomical influences and others.

I can't think of many ways CO2 could change all by itself during prehistoric times, with temperature following later.

I bet I could line up fifty climate scientists, and not one of them would know how a prehistoric CO2 spike would suddenly reverse itself on its own instead of staying up there forever.

The world has been naturally getting warmer since about 1800, coming out of the Little Ice Age. Warmth generates CO2 in the environment.

Now, you can make a good case for recent human contributions to CO2 influencing the overall levels, but if you look at the third graph below, the CO2 was rising evenly since about 1760, on almost a straight line, and far ahead of human emissions. This corresponds to the approximate end of the "Little Ice Age" and warming temperatures. Note that the glaciers started disappearing rapidly around 1820.

The "knee" in the curve which, to me, signals an influence of human contributions seems to appear around 1950, which makes sense. If you look at it from that standpoint, I would make a guess that without any human contributions at all, following the straight line of the pre-1950 CO2 levels, current natural CO2 levels would be at about 330 ppm.