I am one to nit pick, but I hope to do so constructively.
On the part where you were explaining about the heat driving CO2 (via ocean abortion and emission) rather than the other way around, I think it would have been best to first show the strong correlation from the longer term charts...but then zoom in and show the lag to illustrate that the direction of cause and effect must be heat to CO2 rather than the other way.
Also, the second part where you are linking the science to a political agenda, although correct in your conclusions, you were trying to go too far too quickly for the purposes of rhetoric, and may have undercut your case to the casual observer who has not really followed any of this stuff. People are naturally resistant to changing their own opinions, so persuasion is a more gradual process...i.e. you can't take someone from uniformed all the way to harsh reality in just a few minutes.
LOL...drat the spell checker!