Since you took the effort to come up with your own counter-argument with charts, I’m going to refute both of them with a single statement: “not drawn to scale”.

1. Look at the y-axis of the first graph. The temperature variation in that graph is at 30.5 +/- 1.5 degrees. The one in the article is higher resolution at +/- 4 degrees. Also, your first one stops at 2000 AD, which is over 20 years ago. Add in the next 20 years of activity and that little line on the right will reach the peak of your scale easily by today’s temperatures. Its resolution is like watching a 240p video. Use more modern data when making an argument, please.
2. The second graph (also stops ~2000 AD) doesn’t take into account 600 million years of evolution that occured in that time frame. The graph literally starts before multi-cellular life evolved in the cambrian era. There was no greenery at the start of your second graph so the earth was full of CO2 from all the tectonic and volcanic activity that made our continents, which were basically deserts at the time. This graph is made for Biology, not Environmental Science. Not to mention the measurement uncertainty is often higher than the reported temperatures and CO2 levels. In science, that’s called SWAG (a Scientific Wild-Ass Guess)!