What you call "the graphs in the link I gave" is not the most recent graph from the (denialist) source that you'd like to use, it's from 2013, and since then we have had the warmest year ever recorded (2016). Here's the discussion of the more recent graph from your sources, which your sources used in their 2016 testimony (and that graph still doesn't include the results of 2016 and it's still "cooked"). Note that the baseline was "cooked". Here the discussion:
To be precise, in the graphs, the prediction of the models is compared to the satellite data which don't measure surface temperatures and which are confirmed to have slower warming trend at the moment. Are the measured data below the range of the models in some years? Sure. Will the measurements move in the direction of the model once 2016 data are there? Yes. Does the surface temperature data (which you avoided by picking only the satellite ones) match the models significantly better? Yes, and that isn't on these graphs at all. Here's how it looks when we use all the data we have and compare with the models:
In short, what you believe to see on that graph is not what most of the scientists see (I'm not counting among the "most" John Christy and Roy Spencer, who produce or promote these cooked versions and ignore all the evidence they don't like). The scientists see that the measured satellite data did go below the lines of what the model would have expected, but they don't consider that the models are invalidated with these measurements, and even less so once 2016 is included.
So, by supporting what you support, you're still destroying the future of your children and grandchildren, if you ever plan to have them, and you obviously do it only for the very egoistic goals of not even trying to make any change because from your perspective you're doing fine. (your words: "no carbon taxes. No higher electric bills. No attacking our cars, trucks, and airplanes. No shooting our economy in the gut. No thanks.")
Like I've said, it will be obvious in only 20 years, but then it will be even harder to do anything -- and the effects will last for hundreds of years. And if you write the letter to your children and grandchildren (or the kids of the relatives if you don't plan to have children) and they survive to read it, they will be able to see who and how influenced their future, so please do that. If you're right, they will celebrate you as a hero. If you aren't right, and unless you are already planning to die sooner than in 20 years, you'll see it for yourself, then I'm sure they'll use some other words for you, reading your message.
It may be that we are at significant risk of a big disaster.
So, we want to be correct.
For one, we can conclude that there is little or no danger, that we need do nothing, do nothing, be wrong, and have a big disaster.
For another, we
can put on big time carbon taxes, cobber the economy for ourselves and our children, but again might be wrong, that is, have clobbered the economy for no good reason.
So we want a good answer.
Finally, just applying my judgment and what I can smell with my nose, I come down on the side that the crucial part of this issue is not science but politics and money.
E.g., today it did finally sink in to me that, with all the different model results in the graph I linked to, at least one of the results had to be close to reality and, thus, an accurate prediction. Luck would have it that the model with the most accurate prediction was the one predicting essentially no change -- whew, that was a close one! A lot of people could have been fooled with that one!
It's fascinating how you ignore all the measurements that don't match your, as you say, "political" view, if you followed the links, that is. Because you can't say then you didn't understand how much are of them disproving your claims, and what they mean, and still claim you earned a Ph.D. Do you really think it's the whole world conspiracy? Because the "political" claim has no sense unless you believe that world consists only of the US of A, it's most of the scientists all around the world. If you simply say that the short-term politics is more important for you than the future of the world, I can at least understand.
Anyway, "the greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function":
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/compar...
and the corrected graphs, done without bias:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/christy_trop_new.png
To be precise, in the graphs, the prediction of the models is compared to the satellite data which don't measure surface temperatures and which are confirmed to have slower warming trend at the moment. Are the measured data below the range of the models in some years? Sure. Will the measurements move in the direction of the model once 2016 data are there? Yes. Does the surface temperature data (which you avoided by picking only the satellite ones) match the models significantly better? Yes, and that isn't on these graphs at all. Here's how it looks when we use all the data we have and compare with the models:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/models/
In short, what you believe to see on that graph is not what most of the scientists see (I'm not counting among the "most" John Christy and Roy Spencer, who produce or promote these cooked versions and ignore all the evidence they don't like). The scientists see that the measured satellite data did go below the lines of what the model would have expected, but they don't consider that the models are invalidated with these measurements, and even less so once 2016 is included.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2017/01/18/global-temperature-t...
The report from 2006 that you refer to is also not concluding what you believe it concludes. Reading the report is enough to see that.
https://www.nap.edu/read/11676/chapter/4#p200108c09970027001
So, by supporting what you support, you're still destroying the future of your children and grandchildren, if you ever plan to have them, and you obviously do it only for the very egoistic goals of not even trying to make any change because from your perspective you're doing fine. (your words: "no carbon taxes. No higher electric bills. No attacking our cars, trucks, and airplanes. No shooting our economy in the gut. No thanks.")
Like I've said, it will be obvious in only 20 years, but then it will be even harder to do anything -- and the effects will last for hundreds of years. And if you write the letter to your children and grandchildren (or the kids of the relatives if you don't plan to have children) and they survive to read it, they will be able to see who and how influenced their future, so please do that. If you're right, they will celebrate you as a hero. If you aren't right, and unless you are already planning to die sooner than in 20 years, you'll see it for yourself, then I'm sure they'll use some other words for you, reading your message.