Charging an EV may be more expensive than you think...

There is SOMETIMES a correlation between CO2 concentrations and temperature. But to prove your theory (that CO2 causes that warming) you have to show causation too. As always Correlation AND causation is needed. The example of the Vostok ice cores is a good one because we've got a very simple system with the Sun and CO2 and we can see the temperature fluctuating as the two vary. However the CO2 is a passive partner here. The Sun does the warming and, because of this warming, CO2 comes out of solution in the ocean. The CO2 plays no part in the warming.

This is a nice example because it's a situation (on Earth) where there are very few factors at play. It's a "control" experiment. The trouble with attempting to deal with the average global temperature is that you bring all the hundreds of factors on Earth into play. In this case unless you can evaluate the separate contribution of each factor it's very difficult to draw any conclusions about the individual attribution of each factor. That's why scientists always try to find simple systems. And here we have shown that CO2 doesn't cause warming - it simply follows the temperature.

Is this simple enough?      

We already agreed that Co2 causes warming, we know that Co2 alongside other gases keep a percentage of the suns heat in the immediate atmosphere and that for hundreds of thousands of years that balance has kept Earths average temperature at 16 degrees. 
So we KNOW Co2 causes warming,  its a fact. (Causation)
Correlation in this case is just the observation of that fact. We see Co2 increase, we see temperature increase, we know Co2 traps heat in the atmosphere.

It doesn't matter that there are other factors effecting the amount of warming to some small degree, none of that changes the principle.  
But more importantly all those effects are tiny compared to the trillions of joules needed to raise earths temperature by 1.5 degrees, they are so tiny they can be ignored. 

Finally, your argument that unless you can identify every component no matter how small and give it a value that you cannot prove the case is ridiculous and no scientist ever does that.
You can happily say brakes stop a vehicle without having to prove there are no other tiny influences involved. That's because the overriding factor is the brakes and even though the passengers leaning forward may have had an effect on the vehicles speed its still the brakes that did the stopping. 

No they don't. THey constantly make real life decisions based on body of evidence. 

Scientists base their decisions on both facts and evidence. Facts are objective pieces of information that are observable and verifiable, while evidence is the collection of facts that support or refute a particular hypothesis, theory, or claim.

In the scientific method, evidence is gathered through observation, experimentation, and analysis. Scientists use evidence to formulate hypotheses, make predictions, and draw conclusions about the natural world. They critically evaluate the evidence to determine its reliability and relevance to their research questions.

While facts provide the foundation of scientific knowledge, evidence helps scientists to interpret and understand those facts within the context of their research. Therefore, scientists rely on both facts and evidence to make informed decisions and advance scientific understanding.

I don't think they all fit in a single box. Some think certain aspects are wrong, others think we can deal with climate change rather than try and prevent. I even read one a while back you claimed that due to the positions of continents in the Northern hemispere there was more good land to be gained from climate change than lost. 

I would have no time for any scientist who says its just not happening. 
You would need to be more specific if you want a proper answer.