I'm not even talking that drastic of events though...even slight changes with the Sun, which likely have huge weather impacts, are these models including that?

Also, based on the massive amounts of data available, I have an extremely difficult time when EVERY single model I see shows the world warming up for the next how many years.  When you have that much data, unless the models are being manipulated to exclude data that will show otherwise, there WILL be models that show it cooling down.

I don't think that statement holds water.  I mean, aside from the fact that you're alleging a vast, globe-spanning conspiracy of millions, why would having MORE data make the models LESS consistent? 

It's probably because of Climate change.

What do you mean "now"? Now as in the last week?

Though in his defense... it's only been truly testable for about 20 years via sattelite.  The old composite method was full of flaws.

You'd think, though the problem with the past data is well... it's incomplete.

They just threw it all together... ignoring a number of different factors.

Some years weather stations data wasn't available, so they just didn't count it for that year... but counted it for all the others.  Which, causes change even if there wasn't change.

They didn't account for changes in enviroment.  Have the same sun bearing down on grass one day, then pave over the grass another day... and tempeture will rise even if it's the same level of heat because of the difference in concrete vs grass... etc

There are so many factors when it comes to the traditonal based weather station readings... only Sattelite can really be trusted.  With that being the case, it's hard to argue what is causing it, though the short trends we do have do suggest SOMETHING is causing warming.  Though it may end up being just the earth itself naturally.  Which is a contingency that should be planned for.

I'll give you an example.  Lets say you have one variable, and are comparing it to a certain thing to see any relations, and possibly to predict into the future what will happen.  With this one variable, you are very limited with different models that you can make with the data.

Now, lets say you have 3 variables.  You might have one model that was made saying variables 1, 2, and 3 were significant, while another model says only variables 1 and 2 were significant, so doesn't include variable 3.  You may also have a model that was made based on variable 1, 2, 3, and combinations of those (variable 1*2, 1*3, 2*3, 1*2*3) being significant.

As you get more variables, the number of different possibilities continues to amplify more and more.

Think of an insurance company...one company might charge $1000 per year for you, while another only sees the need to charge you $500...but then for the next person who has different characteristics will find that the first insurance company was considerably cheaper for them than the second one.  The formula for one company might see certain people as low risk that another company sees as high risk and vice versa.

So all I'm trying to say is, even with the (relatively speaking) small problems I've worked on in Statistics courses, you can get some models that would show pretty significant differences for what will happen when trying to predict future events, and still have high accuracy with how well the model matches the data.

Edit: So that being the case...my question with all the graphs shown to us, is WHERE is a model showing that if current conditions continue, we may actually get to a cooler level.  I can GUARANTEE you that using SAS on my own computer, if given all their data, I can make a graph that very accurately follows the data, and would show that given certain conditions occurring 20 years from now, show the temp will actually be lower.