Then if the evidence had happened to show CO2 rise and fall proceeded or was concurrent with the temperature rise and fall this would have "weakened" the theory?!?
Its like "heads-I-win/tails-you-lose". No matter what the evidence, it *strengthens* the theory.
Perhaps the initial non-GHG warming could only account for so much, leaving the rest for GHG.
Oh Please! There are tons of things that interact to create the climate system that are not fully accounted for. Some of them actually have some empirical evidence supporting the claim that they actually have initiated climate change. For a while it looked like CO2 level had such evidence...and then we discovered the lag...so now, upon closer examination of the ice cores, it doesn't.
Good points. Thanks!