If indeed you seek a serious response to your question (which I doubt), you may want to formulate your wording in such a way that is less condescending, as this may actually get people to feel you are open to the Data. However, I dont much care what level of intellect you think I have.....so I will comply:
Researchers are unsure of the correlation between CO2, and Global Warming (I prefer the term climate change, as it is a more accurate explanation of the phenomenon). though there is a tie into Carbon Dioxide and temperature variation it is not clear what the cause of shifting global climate is. There are far too mant variables involved. From Solar cycles, to axial tilt, Ocean currents to Volcanism, for a clear cut Model that explains what is happening. That said science has shown that regadless of the many pieces of this puzzle, CO2 levels in our atmopsphere do go hand in hand with changing temperatures worldwide....this is no longer in contention within the community.
The reasoning behind the hype centered on human contributions to climate change are relatively simple. Our industialization HAS added to the CO2 levels in the earths atmosphere, again this is not something easily denied when the Data is studied. Very few scientists contend that we are the cause of the current shift, more that we might....I repeat...Might, have some impact on the speed with which this change takes place. It is also ageed for the most part, that any contribution we have made to these levels are irrelevant to the process for all intent and purpose, short of some pointless blame game. We are likely incapable of halting the change, as it is part of a natural cycle that has been part of this planet for many thousands, if not millions of years (we do not have sufficient Data to accurately show the cycle has always been active).
To deny the CO2 connection is a pointless exersize. The Data is extremely clear, and cannot be ignored. The question becomes one of Why.....Not If.
"In June of 1999 the latest ice core data from the Vostok site in Antarctica were published by Petit et al in the British journal Nature. These new data extended the historical record of temperature variations and atmospheric concentrations of CO2, methane and other greenhouse trace gases (GTG) back to 420,000 years before present (BP). The ice cores were drilled to over 3,600 meters. This is just over 2.2 miles deep. These new data double the length of the historical record.
The main significance of the new data lies in the high correlation between GTG concentrations and temperature variations over 420,000 years and through four glacial cycles. However, because of the difficulty in precisely dating the air and water (ice) samples, it is still unknown whether GTG concentration increases precede and cause temperature increases, or vice versa--or whether they increase synchronously. It's also unknown how much of the historical temperature changes have been due to GTGs, and how much has been due to orbital forcing, ie, increases in solar radiation, or perhaps long-term shifts in ocean circulation.
Whether the ultimate cause of temperature increase is excess CO2, or a different orbit, or some other factor probably doesn't matter much. It could have been one or the other, or different combinations of factors at different times in the past. The effect is still the same. Nevertheless, the scientific consensus is that GTGs account for at least half of temperature increases, and that they strongly amplify the effects of small increases in solar radiation due to orbital forcing.
The graph below includes data from the Nature paper, plus data from other studies referenced below. Notice how CO2 concentration rises vertically at the end of the time series. The increase appears vertical because of the large time scale, but it actually occurs over the past 150 years, which corresponds to the age of fossil fuels (the modern industrial age). Notice too that there hasn't been a corresponding increase in temperature during this time period. This is probably due to the ability of the oceans to function as a heat sink, and thereby delay the increase in atmospheric temperatures. However, there are recent indications that the oceans are now warming, which will reduce their ability to act as a heat sink."
Note on graph presentation: The heavier temperature lines 160,000 BP to present reflect more data points for this time period, not necessarily greater temperature variability.
