Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, the scientific evidence for your claims is in one word, JUNK. For proof of the junk status, their predictions have already failed badly. Again, once again, over again, yet again, one more time, this time just for you, in science, when predictions are proven badly wrong, then we junk the science. That's much of why we do look to science for solid answers. As in the graphs in the link I gave, nearly all the mode…
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…
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!