Well, I've asked Morgan to provide such references (numerous times) and he's refused to respond every time. Either they aren't so easy to find, or Morgan is just being obstinate.

Count - I'm not saying CO2 doesn't have some role in the warming. I've never said it's not a GHG, or some other "it's plant food" tripe.

My initial question was how can one associate the majority of the current warming with increased CO2 levels, when the relationship one uses to prove that relationship is based on historical records that show CO2 lagging temperature (both on the rise and the fall).

It's critical to determine how much of the warming is caused by CO2 increases. Why? Because it determines our response.
99% caused by CO2? Slash carbon emissions
75% caused by CO2? Slash carbon emissions
50% caused by CO2? Lets reduce, but perhaps we should start thinking about other proirities.
25% caused by CO2? Carbon reduction obviously becomes less of a priority
1% caused by CO2? Is it worth putting anything towards carbon emission reduction?

The thresholds are obviously arbitrary - but the concept is valid. If the current 0.6 degree/century warming trend is comprised of .1 carbon warming, and .5 solar related, is it worthwhile to spend resources reducing carbon?

The argument that the lag doesn't matter because it doesn't describe today's situation is valid - but by the same token (and please quote the entire sentence Morgan), you can't use the historical record to infer the effect of CO2 on temperature today for the exact same reason. You can't have your cake and eat it too.