I don't know what to tell you - if someone could actually disprove this stuff, they'd win an actual Nobel prize. The reason they haven't is because there's nothing to disprove.
The articles you've linked are from Selyn Duke, a freelance conservative journalist; Christopher Booker, another journalist know for previous work skeptical of the links between cigarette smoking, asbestos, and cancer; and Tim Ball, a retired professor who hasn't taught since 1996 - and is a straight-up climate denier. None of them are Nobel winners.
Likewise, the idea that CO2 comes after warming makes no sense, and requires us to simply disregard basic chemistry. CO2 is a byproduct of combustion. Unless you think all that jet fuel we burn doesn't actually combust, I don't know what else to say.
Oh for God's sake, look at the papers being cited in the articles. All, Nobel, winners.
In their seminal paper on the Vostok Ice Core, Petit et al (1999)  note that CO2 lags temperature during the onset of glaciations by several thousand years but offer no explanation. They also observe that CH4 and CO2 are not perfectly aligned with each other but offer no explanation. The significance of these observations are (sic) therefore ignored. At the onset of glaciations temperature drops to glacial values before CO2 begins to fall suggesting that CO2 has little influence on temperature modulation at these times.
The bottom line is that rising temperatures cause carbon levels to rise. Carbon may still influence temperatures, but these ice cores are neutral on that. If both factors caused each other to rise significantly, positive feedback would become exponential. We’d see a runaway greenhouse effect. It hasn’t happened. Some other factor is more important than carbon dioxide, or carbon’s role is minor.
Gas is trapped in polar ice at depths of ~50–120 m and is therefore significantly younger than the ice in which it is embedded. The age difference is not well constrained for slowly accumulating ice on the East Antarctic Plateau, introducing a significant uncertainty into chronologies of the oldest deep ice cores.
It is reasonable to say that virtually all potential diagnoses are eliminated by the removal of annual variation, but especially the sequence of events. Notice that the overall atmospheric average of CO2 is different, approximately 260 ppm to 300 ppm. This is a difference that the IPCC claim took us from about 50% CO2 control of global temperature in 1950 to 95% + today.
In a recent letter, Ricke and Caldeira (2014 Environ. Res. Lett. 9 124002) estimated that the timing between an emission and the maximum temperature response is a decade on average. In their analysis, they took into account uncertainties about the carbon cycle, the rate of ocean heat uptake and the climate sensitivity but did not consider one important uncertainty: the size of the emission. Using simulations with an Earth System Model we show that the time lag between a carbon dioxide (CO2) emission pulse and the maximum warming increases for larger pulses. Our results suggest that as CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere, the full warming effect of an emission may not be felt for several decades, if not centuries.
So the IPCC has not been able to address why it is that we have repeatedly proven CO2 rises AFTER temperatures increase, and we still don't even know what caused the end of the last ice age.
And no, it does not require we ignore basic chemistry, because no one has even measured CO2's effect in pure isolation, and even the original work linking the two had people on the actual research teams fighting over whether CO2 had any effect at all given most of what they measured involved the effects of water vapor.
You attempting to shut down the debate purely because of who wrote a given article is an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy. No one has come anywhere close to proving that CO2 from mans activity drives climate change, and the IPCC ignores data left and right to make its case.