However if there are multiple factors it would appear as more chaotic.

Maybe you are right.

There is also a flaw in the interpretation of CO2 levels.

What's wrong with my mathematical interpretation of CO₂? I only use observation data of the last 80 years which doesn't involve the vostok ice cores.

CO2 is also not the only factor in play. Water Vapour is another significant contributor to global warming.

Yes, but we don't produce a significant amount of water vapor. Also water vapor can have the opposite effect: Reflecting light from the sun(On a cloudy day significantly less light reaches earth), whereas CO₂ only reflects IR which carries significantly less power from the sun.

The issue isn't that CO2 or H2O cause climate change, they trap the energy coming from the sun.

… which leads to a warming of our planet. Which in fact is a change in climate.

we haven't paid any thought to the potential of global cooling.

A cooling would be nice now, but I don't think the drop will be enough to counteract the growth we experienced due to CO₂(which is something between 1 and 2 °C as I calculated in my last comment). For better data you would need to also add the CO₂ that will be produced in the next years and you will get more then the little ice age cooled.