From Watts Up With That:
The relative proportions of carbon dioxide and oxygen have varied very widely over the geological ages. It will be seen that there is no correlation whatsoever between carbon dioxide concentration and the temperature at the earth’s surface.
The alarmist rebuttal from Skeptical Science does not appear to dispute the actual facts from the first article, but:
Atmospheric CO2 levels have reached spectacular values in the deep past, possibly topping over 5000 ppm in the late Ordovician around 440 million years ago. However, solar activity also falls as you go further back. In the early Phanerozoic, solar output was about 4% less than current levels...
What about times closer to home? The last time CO2 was similar to current levels was around 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene. Back then, CO2 levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. Arctic temperatures were 11 to 16°C warmer (Csank 2011). Global temperatures over this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. Sea levels were around 25 metres higher than current sea level (Dwyer 2008).
If anything, that disproves a CO2-temperature link. If there were one, then it would be 3C warmer than it actually is. And why was there no 'runaway global warming caused by feedback effects' last time CO2 levels were this high? Because there is no such thing, it is a physical impossibility, like a perpetual motion machine.
If climate scientists were claiming CO2 was the only driver of climate, then high CO2 during glacial periods would be problematic.
That is exactly what they are claiming and it is problematic.
But any climate scientist will tell you CO2 is not the only driver of climate... Past periods of higher CO2 do not contradict the notion that CO2 warms global temperatures. On the contrary, they confirm the close coupling between CO2 and climate.
DoubleThink at its best. CO2 is main driver unless it's something else. Lack of correlation confirms correlation. There is a close coupling unless there isn't. They are truly making it up as they go along.
Read the articles, the first one might well be all lies and propaganda funded by Big Oil, but it is internally consistent, coherent and plausible. The second article ties itself in knots, leaving the reader none the wiser but with the impression that it's a load of rubbish.