You're leaving out a couple of factors. The biggest one is that, as he pointed out, CO2 is a very minor greenhouse gas. The biggest is water. Compared to water, our CO2 emissions are just a few "farts in a hurricaine".
Secondly, through ice core samples, CO2 levels throughout history can be examined, just like climate changes. It's been proven that CO2 levels
follow climate change. They do not precede, nor drive it.
In another thread I quoted Alan Niezabitowski:
To be called science, things must stand up under a process called ?The Scientific Method.? Three steps are involved: One, observe a phenomenon. Two, devise a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon. Three, devise a test to prove or disprove the hypothesis. If the third step proves it, you have a scientific truth. Every global warming item I have read stops at step 2 or uses an argument like ?It started at the industrial age, therefore the industrial age caused it.? This is a common fallacy in logic known as ?Post Hoc ergo Propter Hoc? (After it, therefore caused by it) which is utterly invalid as far as the scientific method goes. Flat earth theories were not abandoned because of a shift in consensus. They were disproven by step 3 of the scientific method, and our current globe earth science stands up to the method. Most pro-global warming people think the hypothesis must be true so it is true. Even when a disproving step 3 happens (there will be more violent and numerous hurricanes this year because of global warming).
I'm sure you remember that. Just last summer the media had their cameras out there on the beaches of Florida and in New Orleans waiting for the next Katrina to come along and wipe us all out... their predicted apocalypse. We were being told that because of global warming it's going to get worse and worse each year. And yet, we had no hurricanes to speak of in the United States last year.
He goes on...
When Einstein?s theory of relativity was thought to be insane, Einstein provided a step 3 method of testing it involving an eclipse and how light would behave. Things happened like he said they would, and we now accept the theory of relativity as science. The point is, if global warming theories were scientific fact, no scientist would be able to dispute it
But there are plenty of scientists who do dispute the current popular man-made global warming theories. There's still plenty to debate about, plenty to learn.