BTS - if people are interested in a deep dive on stomatal density versus icecore CO2 then they can do so:
You asked me my scientific opinion on an oil-industry geologist blogger rehashing old work. Stomatal density isn't even self-consistent, never mind trying to make a case for it as an accurate model that supercedes icecore data - on the skepticalscience link above you will note the blogger David Middleton appears (to the untrained eye) to lose the debate - certainly he failed to respond to the final points made back in August 2010.
Lets take a step back here.
The ice cores are consistent with many other pieces of the climate change puzzle - having tried and failed with many other cherry picked datapoints you now have 'discovered' the 1999 Wagner paper. It's a classic denier technique to focus on one piece of science and then try and pull that apart, meanwhile ignoring all the other fields of endeavour that have contributed to climate change theory as a whole.
You still haven't explained why global temperatures will not rise if CO2 concentration is increasing. Or do you need me to break that down for you?
Lets not forget the OP from 2008 expecting a new Ice Age. 2010 is likely to be the hottest year of the hottest decade. Except if there is snow outside your house at the moment.