I'm not sure what deductions you think I missed, but I'm aware of everything you wrote and don't disagree with it, and none of what you wrote contradicts what I wrote either. I'm not claiming that the reverse-correlation disproves AGW and I'm certainly not saying that CO2 is incapable of driving temperature, merely correcting the assertion that it did so historically. See: "Until very recently " and "That doesn't mean that CO2 doesn't or can't cause or contribute to warming. It does."
The most likely confusion is that I didn't explicitly assert that temperature lags CO2 today, because while this is probably true you obviously can't base it on plotting CO2 vs. T for the last hundred or so years. It's far too short a time frame to smooth out all the noise compared to the historical record. The record shows that historically, CO2 lagged temperature, but it doesn't say that the reverse is true (it also doesn't say that it is false) today.
Saying "supported by current climate theories" is a good way to put it. I could probably have put it better that, while the talking point that the historical record proves that CO2 drives temperature is an ass-backwards mistake popularized by a politician who made a movie, that even though the reverse-correlation doesn't prove anthropogenic global warming, it doesn't disprove it either.