No, YOU miss the point, intentionally. 1.3 ppmv increase on a basis of 15,400 ppmv is insignificant, particularly when only 3% of that trivial amount is anthropogenic. Refusing to look at evidence does not help your understanding or argument. Moreover, carbon dioxide LAGS temperature by hundreds of years, as explained by climate scientist in his book Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years
Climate scientists all agree that the climate has always changed. Obviously the climate changes without any contribution from human industry, because there was no large scale human industrial activity before the 20th century, and no human industry at all before the last glaciation.
Climate scientists all agree that CO2 lags temperature, but not this time around. In the past, global warming and cooling were triggered by events other than a sudden increase in atmospheric CO2. For instance, volcano eruptions can cause warming by reducing the albedo of snow, and Milankovitch cycles cause the planet to warming and cool. In these situations CO2 will rise
after warming has already started. This time around, however, the planet has a new source of atmospheric CO2, human industry, that never existed before, which means that atmospheric CO2 is now able to be the initial source to climate forcing.
That's all pretty obvious, though.
Singer, like some other "skeptics" such as Svensmark, argues that our present warming is caused by increases in solar irradiance. However, if solar irradiance was the dominant source of climate forcing, then we should have seen global temperatures drop as we go through each minimum of the 11-year solar cycle. Instead we have gone several decades without any global cooling. Singer grasps at straws by attributing the current warming to Bond cycles, but these cycles are relatively weak and can't possibly account for the magnitude of present warming.
That's the common theme with these deniers: they claim that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is dubious and then they marry themselves to these shoddy alternative theories. It is pretty obvious that climate "skepticism" has nothing to do with scientific standards and everything to do with politics.
I did not put any words in your mouth. 
I DID ask a specific question to test your understanding and my own. If you can't answer a simple obvious follow-up question in response to your own claim, the inference is that you do not understand the subject matter, not even your own claim.
