did you actually read the article you just posted, or did you just control F it to find the one stat to prove your point? the article explicitly states that CO2 is not always the primary driver of global warming, and that periods of high CO2 do not overlap with periods of glaciation (read: high CO2 = no ice). no ice sheets means there is an increased sea level, decreased libido, increased oceanic longitudinal currents, and, therefore, no more cold water. during the ordovician this occurred because antarctica was attached to australia, cutting off the southern polar oceanic current which, today, basically keeps cold water circling the pole, instead of flowing towards the equator to warm up. with that current cut off, the cold polar waters passed along the equators as well, warming all the oceans, melting the ice caps. all this means that the global glaciation threshold of CO2 is completely different today than it was during the earlier periods of the phanerozioc, and cnnot be compared figure for figure. also what this means is that as we pass the modern CO2 threshold and all of the effects mentioned above take place, sea levels can be expected to rise several hundred feet. this would decimate almost every major city in the world, as well as fuck over our ski season. (sources: the one you provided in an attempt to disprove the theory of climate change, and my geology 103 notes. its a fucking entry level class and it still disproves your claims.)
so please, when you make a claim, try to look at all the information available. there are many more factors involved in something as complex as climate change, and if you try to pull one piece of data and use it for an argument then you are simply bad at the scientific method.
