The CO2=catastrophe advocates say that solar warming triggers CO2 feedback and more warming from that. For example the relatively small warming from the Milankovitch cycle plus the fact that the NH gets more sun creates the interglacials, like the present one. The CO2 in their theory is a multiplier taking 100's or 1000's of years, but basically amplifying the warming in a full feedback loop. They claim that the current manmade CO2 is a short circuit.
There are several problems with that theory. First M cycles have coincided with more drastic solar magnetic changes. Second, M cycles and alleged CO2 feedback reaches a certain high temperature and no further (a one-off event 200M years ago does not change things). Third, the feedback depends on the climate sensitivity to CO2 which depends on the solar magnetic and other factors. Those are not in the models, not in the ice age forcing studies, and an area of research looked on with disfavor.
So the modelers do agree with your statement above that warming precedes the CO2 rise, but then they add a continuous loop of warming and CO2 rise for centuries to get their result.
I think the progressive movement should try something new—how about good old fashioned honesty?
Why don’t they simply present socialism for what it is, out in the open, and build their support from there?
Instead of making up schemes like “global warming” and then having to rename it first “climate change” and then “global cooling caused by global warming.”
Why are socialists so afraid of their own ideology?
One of the most critical flaws in the role of CO2 is assuming that, at the levels in our atmosphere we see it at, increasing it is the same as painting a window. Global Warming advocates say the behavior at these levels is apparent in the same way. The first coat of paint will somewhat cover the window, but light will still come in. Each subsequent coat of paint will produce a linear response until no light comes in through the window.
At these levels of CO2, that is a completely false premise. One of many.
As critics, too many of us fall into the trap of saying that CO2 doesn’t have the effects it is credited with because it is only .004% of the atmosphere. Supporters will immediately fire back that science is full of things that have effects apparent at those low concentrations.