In case you didn't read the NASA report on temperature/co2 lead/lag, here it is again.
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/11362
It indicates that there are two separate processes whereby temperature can either lead or lag CO2.
Do you acknowledge that this is correct or not ?
It's an interesting article. Just read the first paragraph (by all means read the whole thing, but for now, just look at the first paragraph). It says that before the last 200 years or so (the industrial age), the temperature lead CO2, not the other way around. That's billions of years. That shows us what's going on. It shows that temperature is the cause, CO2 is not the cause. That's exactly what it says. This is an important point. Read it from me in this post or my previous posts or the NASA article or other sources. Take as much time as it takes to understand this important point.
Okay, once you understand that, now consider that CO2, which has not actually legitimately been shown to have a significant affect on temperature (it's the other way around, according to both me and your own source) has been introduced by an auxiliary source, which makes it a red herring in the whole picture. It is not going to cause anything to happen, and it is not indicative of the climate either. It is from the burning of fossil fuels. It is the first time ever in the history of the planet that it has happened, and nothing about that particular part of the picture indicates that anything in particular will come of it, indeed, NASA's own data extremely strongly demonstrates the opposite.
Assuming you did actually grasp the concept given in your own article, which backs up what I have been saying, that CO2 naturally lags rather than leads, we have overwhelming evidence that CO2 does not cause a runaway greenhouse effect. This is a very simple concept, and an important one worth understanding, so take the time to do it.
Okay, so we all agree that CO2 lags temperature, right? So, *after* the temperature goes up, CO2 goes up. Not before, after. Now, if the narrative of CO2 *causing* increased temperatures was true, this would indeed cause a runaway greenhouse effect, which is what the mainstream narrative says. However, we have literally a billion years of data showing this has never, ever happened, despite many many many cycles of the temperature going up, CO2 going up, and then the temperature going down. This blatantly, clearly screamingly obviously shows that CO2 does not cause a runaway effect. We have a huge number of real world demonstrations of this fact in the history of this very planet. Not mathematical models with financial and political bias, but real empirical data.
I'm glad you found an article from a source you trust which demonstrates this (albeit unwittingly), because it beautifully backs up what I'm saying.
If you still don't understand this, please feel free to ask about these two important points again, because they are quite important, fundamental, disprove the narrative and are very tangible. You don't need to believe me on anything, your own data and even the smallest most basic amount of self reasoning clearly show it.