In the chart there is usually lagging back because of all those astronomical events that you describe which change the temperature without changing CO₂ which will only slowy solve in the oceans at cooler temperatures.
But when you ignore those anomalies and compare the details there are many occasion where a CO₂-peak is followed by a temperature peak a short time afterwards.

This means that earth is receiving 20-30 percent more energy than during a glaciation period.

You made there a mistake while copying from your source.
Your source says:

When the Earth's orbit is most elliptical the amount of solar energy received at the perihelion would be in the range of 20 to 30 percent more than at aphelion.

Those are two entirely different things!

Stepping into the water (producing CO₂ emissions) will get us wet but even if we had stepped back (stopped emissions decades ago entirely) the water would still be at our ankles now.

All processes you mention are completely cyclical and already happened in the past every so often. All life on earth has adapted to every point in those cycles(including us humans). So if the cycles continue there should be no problem, right?
But the cycles obviously don't continue. CO₂-levels are higher than during the last 400000 years and probably more. Also we are on a plateau in temperature that is longer than before in the last 400000 years. Yes we had a little drop(little ice age), but we are again back on the plateau.
My theory about the little ice is that it is the drop in temperature, but high CO₂ concentrations reversed the slow cooling and brought it up to a warming period.

Despite the coldness and wetness this season, the amount of greenery is exploding around here.

Yes plants can grow better if there is more CO₂ in the air.
But CO₂ in the air is not the only problem of CO₂.
When you put CO₂ in water you get a weak acid. So solving more CO₂ in water is going to create more acidic oceans. And because most plants and animals are very sensitive to pH-changes the oceans will partly die because of human CO₂!

(Canadian's would like to see a little warming)

If you want it to be warm then you should move to a warmer location instead of making half of the planet uninhabitable.

Ironically CO₂ may ameliorate the situation.

If we would control it: yes. But obviously we can't control it when countries like the USA, one of the main producer of CO₂, completely deny that humanity can affect climate in any way. And also we should have started controlling it long ago because the current global average temperature is too high(and there it doesn't matter if a few countries are getting colder).