A couple of issues here. I mean no offence, but I can tell by some of the things you say, you're not formally educated in the field of atmospheric chemistry or similar fields. To a lay person, things like 420ppm might sound like a pretty low concentration, but really, if you have no idea of the physics of what is happening, you have no capacity to say if it's significant or not. For example, 400ppm concentration is TWENTY times the concentration of Arsenic Pentachloride required to kill you. But since something SEEMS like a low concentration to a lay person, it's ok to think it's safe? I mean if 407ppm is just a "fart in a hurricane" then surely 20ppm would be ok right? Wrong.....you'd be dead.
Obviously it's an extreme example to make a point. The significance of something requires a full understanding of the thing and how it relates to everything it interacts with so concluding it's insignificant based on zero science or understanding is ill-advised. Fortunately, there are thousands of PhD wielding scientists out there who DO understand how this works and can tell us that this is a significant number so we don't have to come to our own conclusions based on....well...not much.
The whole "CO2 lagging temperature" thing is a popular talking point from the denier handbook. However, it has been well addressed in the peer reviewed literature and we know that orbital changes are what trigger warming, but the increase in CO2 concentrations that result from the initial warming is what makes the warming so severe. It acts as a form of feedback loop.
Actually I started out as a chemistry major at what is now the University of Southwest Alabama but my allergies couldn't tolerate organic esters so I wound up switching to physics when I transferred to the University of Alabama. I spent a couple of years at that before I realized I would rather be doing physical type labors as opposed to sitting at a desk. I was pretty good at physics too. I scored a perfect score on one of my course final exams.
The arsenic (someone else I know used carfentanyl as an example instead) involves a biological process. That has nothing to do with climatology. The theory behind CO2 changing climate is that the CO2 molecules reflect solar energy back to earth that would normally just radiate into outer space. Once again I'll repeat that the idea that one molecule out of every 2457 can reflect any meaningful amount of energy back to earth is fairly absurd. It is true that nitrogen has a deleterious effect on certain ecosystems in that it promotes algal growth where it isn't particularly desirable. However, as long as you are fond of eating you need to be okay with that as nitrogen is essential for growing crops. (BTW, I still work seasonally in the fertilizer industry for the United Farmers of Alberta hauling anhydrous ammonia (NH3 is 82% N) plus I treat wheat, barley, and peas for seeding in the springtime so I'm fairly knowledgeable about that process too.)
Some nitrous oxides tend to be health irritants but I don't know of any proof that they affect climate. If they did then we should logically see climate aberrations in cities like Los Angeles and Beijing. As far as whether a graph is accurate about weather trends, have a look at the ones you think are accurate and if they don't show that the 1930s were the hottest years on modern record then yours are fake. All the ones I see promoting climate change don't show that.
Here's some interesting quotes from the past:
The Washington Post reported that “the Arctic Ocean is warming up … and in some places seals are finding the water too hot.” That was in 1922, and explorers wrote about Arctic ice cycles long before that. “We were astonished by the total absence of ice in Barrow Strait,” Sir Francis McClintock wrote in 1860, whereas at this time in 1854 it was “still frozen up.” As to continental USA weather, a commentator said “Snows are less frequent and less deep, and the rivers scarcely ever [freeze over] now.” That was Thomas Jefferson, in 1799. The 1970s manmade global cooling scare was replaced by today’s warming crisis.