Many words there Moray but in essence it does not deny that co2 lags temperature increase. It claims (unproven) that the increased co2 resulting from an increasing temperature amplifies the effect. While that may be true it may also be true that the increasing level of co2 has no significant effect on the temperature. Fact is, Gore skipped over it because it was an "inconvenient truth".
It says, just as the science does, that during interglacial warming CO2 can be predicted to lag until the retreat of the ice sheets worldwide.
changes in the CO2 and CH4 content have played a significant part in the glacial-interglacial climate changes by amplifying, together with the growth and decay of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets, the relatively weak orbital forcing
What is being talked about here is influence of the seasonal radiative forcing change from the earth's wobble around the sun (the well established Milankovitch theory of ice ages), combined with the positive feedback of ice sheet albedo (less ice = less reflection of sunlight = warmer temperatures) and greenhouse gas concentrations (higher temperatures lead to more CO2 leads to warmer temperatures). Thus, both CO2 and ice volume should lag temperature somewhat, depending on the characteristic response times of these different components of the climate system. Ice volume should lag temperature by about 10,000 years, due to the relatively long time period required to grow or shrink ice sheets. CO2 might well be expected to lag temperature by about 1000 years, which is the timescale we expect from changes in ocean circulation and the strength of the "carbon pump" (i.e. marine biological photosynthesis) that transfers carbon from the atmosphere to the deep ocean.
Why even attempt to show you where science is at if your preconceptions get in the way all the time? Marine biological photosynthesis is a major user of carbon. While the levels go up, the microscopic plants in the ocean that do most of this, increase in population as well, due to higher levels of raw material for metabolic process, IE CO2. At some point this population slows and or crashes, due to another mitigating population control. (surging water temperatures are most likely to be this) Thus CO2 will lag until this happens, which in some newer papers, is around 200 years, maybe less.
Here is the problem with your types. Arguing a point that is 17 to 20 years past argument.... It's already been agreed upon. Yet denialists can't wrap their minds around it, as par for most issues that deal with anything scientific.