Perhaps when you make this argument you should consider all the consumers of carbon dioxide before you declare how we are affecting the atmosphere with CO2.
The biomass of plants on land and in the sea consumes immense amounts of C02 every day. If you give them more CO2, they grow faster and bigger. Their consumption is elastic. Look in a hydroponic or green house catalog and you'll find many CO2 generators and gas monitoring systems available to improve plant growth.
This is not the only place that CO2 disappears into.
Let's not parrot the conclusions of a consensus of 1,000s of scientists when science doesn't work that way. Science is more a gunfighter paradigm where the guy with the best theories and facts to prove the theories rules the streets. In fact, being scientist usually means selecting a very narrow aspect of all nature to study. This means that few of the 1,000s of scientists actually can speak on the basis of their personal experience and knowledge.
Consensus is a political approach to decision-making not a scientific one. Global warming smells more like a political theory than a scientific one.
"History is a tool used by politicians to justify their intentions." -- Ted Koppel