From the reading I have done elsewhere, the correlation is that the increases in atmospheric CO2 have followed the respective ice ages; in other words, they are a result of climate change rather than the cause.

Sea levels have changed by about 12 inches in a century I have just been reading, which provides more than enough time for man to adapt - London did so actually with the construction of the Thames flood barrier in the 1970s, a project that followed on from rational debate of the day.

Meanwhile, while the ice sheet of the Artic has decreased in recent times, that of the Antartic has increased, so I read.
I have seen this reported elsewhere and there is a concept in play that one compensates for the other i.e. over a long time, each one shrinks and expands in a form of Gaia-like balance.

I was amused by the research ship of a couple of years ago that visited Antartica with the express intention of "proving" the ice sheet there was shrinking (good idea; lets adopt an ideology and set out to prove it correct) - in short, the ship got stuck in the ice and the researchers had to be rescued, no doubt at great expense and expenditure of various forms of emissions by someone.

Finally, for now:
"One recent survey shows that 27% of US Democrats are in favour of prosecuting climate sceptics. This is the mentality of religious fanaticism, not scientific debate".
Five articles on climate change | Matt Ridley

No wonder the 50 states of the union have little faith in their federal government.

My thanks go to Mollydog for raising a great question for the new year.
If this whole subject were to be considered in court it might be thrown out as "not proven".

__________________
Dave