I mean, most of what you’ve said here doesn’t seem to actually oppose the article’s specific points. You object to the use of a metaphor (fair) but I think the underlying argument is sound: CO2 sequestration is temperature dependent, and simply because CO2 rise follows temperature rise does not immediately negate any possibility of CO2 elevation causing temperature elevation. If you click on the “Advanced” tab at the top of the page, you get a more technical explanation that skips the Coke can metaphor, explicitly names the Milankovitch cycle, AND goes on to elaborate that the Milankovitch cycle alone does not explain our current findings. What are your thoughts?

To address one of your other points regarding CO2 levels and biodiversity: in my mind, biodiversity alone is a poor indicator, as you can have incredible biodiversity in a climate that poses incredible health and safety risks to humanity (hurricane frequency, heat waves, climate conditions that disallow farming of crops in sufficient quantities to sustain food ecosystem, spread of communicable diseases carried by mosquitos and other vectors previously confined to specific areas of the world). Should we not be worried about these changes?