Yup. But ... Scientists make or break their reputation on getting published. It's just the way it is. And publishers (even journals) are always looking for articles that will catch the public's, or peers, attention. So there is some slight bias built into the system. I'm not saying it's not happening, but it's a little like a polite version of the evening news ...
There are a number of interrelated issues. CO2 (and other gasses are one). Solar activity is another. Orbital mechanics and Earths tilt are another. The shape and distribution of continental land masses is another (where do you think all that oil in Russia, the North Sea, and Alaska/Canada came from...).
And how hot was the Earth in the past when there were air breathing creatures walking around?
We know about the cold from glacial evidence. And repeated glacial events. But the evidence of the heat peaks in between is harder to tease out ...
Sure a bunch of billions of people engaged in some sort of survival (cooking for one) and livelihood activities is a factor (including burning fossil fuels). But all that carbon underground was once free in the atmosphere in the past. And we still have trillions of barrels underground in proven reserves, leave alone new discoveries ...
There have been atmospheric level of carbon that we can't even imagine on Earth before. I'm not saying go there, but I'm not sure we are anywhere near testing the limits yet ...
Of course, it would be nice to have a viable gene pool off the planet if we want to test those limits...
