First, the title of my post just indicated that the US is no longer the primary country which is driving CO2 up. Ever been to a city of 20 million in Asia? You can barely breathe. They've got hundreds of millions of 2-cycle scooters pumping CO2 into the air every day, and their factory regulations are not as strong as ours. I oppose a regime that tries to solve the spike you show by regulating us more than them, because it will not solve the spike and it will just sacrifice our country for theirs, and I don't think that is a long term good for the world. What is your solution?

Then, I said that humans picked a bad time to start smoking...meaning, we started generating CO2 at the top of the CO2 cycle...and, if going higher is bad, we picked a bad time to drive it higher. Granted, that is because we had to be warm for that to even start happening, so it was inevitable that that happen, I thing. But, my statement by itself did not challenge your post at all. It just lamented reality.

Also, I removed nothing. I pulled an image from wikipedia which shows the cyclic nature of the situation. As far as the NASA graph (which omits the bottom half of the graph to make it more persuasive in a misleading way...just sayin'), I can only hope that the spike is because we changed how we measure CO2 exactly precisely when the spike happens (from ice cores to direct measurement). But, if that is not the reason, there could be a problem. Of course, when we run out of oil in 50 years (a blip in the timeline), the spike will likely disappear over the next few hundred years (as it always has in the past), and we may even return to the natural cycle, which would totally suck because it would get pretty damned cold. Humanity flourishes at the top of the spike, not the bottom. Obviously, though, like any species, we have a goldilocks zone, and going too far outside that zone, on the top or bottom, can't be good. We'll just have to adapt, but I think long term change is the only long term constant.