Op, you have delberately twisted what I wrote to your own ends, that is your method of argument.
You have exposed some confusion in your AGW ranks. For a long time, the perceived problem of global warming was one of the blanket effect of excessive carbon dioxide in the air. Not the gas itself. Its toxicity or otherise was never mentioned as the problem, it was always purely one of the blanket effect.
There seems to be confusion as to what the exact problem is. My argument has always been that the first step to solving any problem is to properly identify it.
So is the problem carbon dioxide itself, or is it the blanket effect, or is it both, and if it is, is there are certainty that anything can be done about it?
Once those questions are answered, it will be easy to find a solution. Even you would agree that there is not much point in reducing carbon dioxide output if there will be no beneficial effect. Nobody would argue with that.
