TIA, from your cite in posting at 11 Feb 13 - 12:37 PM - on p285, beginning of section 6: "To evaluate the climatic impacts of these pre-industrial greenhouse-gas increases, the following analysis uses the IPCC (2001) estimate of a 2.5C equilibrium sensitivity of global climate to a CO2 doubling."

Is this a serious scientific paper? Using IPCC (2001)? The IPCC reports have been discredited, based as they are mainly on "gray sources": that is, on literature from lobbyist groups with an ax to grind (lobbyist groups such as WWF, Greenpeace, FoE, etc). The current estimate is that climate sensitivity is about 1C, not 2.5. I couldn't work out what effect a smaller value of sensitivity would have on "the following analysis". (OK: perhaps I'm being too harsh on the authors of your 10-year-old cite, since the truly partial nature of IPCC & its reports have only really become well known in the last few years.)

But that's neither here nor there. There's at least as much evidence that, historically, temperature changes lead carbon dioxide changes as the reverse. Eg look at Wikipedia; not obvious there that CO2 is cause and temperature is effecxt, is there?

And

• In the last 15 years (or so) there has been no increase in average global temperature (whatever that is), but carbon dioxide percentages have been rising inexorably. I deduce that CO2 is not the only or even a major cause of Global warming.
• All the scares about what used to be called global warming originate from climatic models. All these models are programmed on the basis of "CO2 is a greenhouse gas, therefore if CO2 increases so must global temperature," with more or fewer positive-feedback effects relating to water vapour and methane et al; they all predict "doom" - now there's a surprise. None, not one, predicted the current decade and a half's temperature "plateau" (point of inflexion?).
• 
  If the science is so unarguably on the side of those with a point of view other than my own, why do they need to bully and browbeat their adversaries, to slant peer-review panels in their favour, to deny their adversaries access to serious publications, or to "lose" the temperature records their publications are based on or the code they use to smooth/adjust/cherry-pick their data (all documented in "climategate" leaked emails); or why do they need to make up memos which appear to cast their adversaries in a bad light ("fakegate")? Just asking.