climate change

My understanding is the models can't accurately predict ocean surface temperatures since they vary from ocean to ocean.  Another question worth asking is who agrees the accuracy of the models, is it climate scientists and why have some models been abandoned?

CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas. That is a scientific fact.

It works by letting light in but when it hits a surface and turns to heat it does not let it back out, in other words it traps heat. Another well established scientific fact.

CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have been measured and are known to be twice as high as they were a couple of centuries ago. Another fact. The increased heat this traps is bound to make the atmosphere warmer than it otherwise would be. 

Average global temperatures have been measured and are almost 1.5 C warmer than in preindustrial times, clearly in response to the increased CO2. And since natural CO2 output has not increased but man made burning of coal and oil is known to pump out CO2 it is scientifically undeniable that the warming is due to us. The sea level is measurably rising as ice sheets retreat.

All of this is undeniable scientific fact. Where the problems come in is when scientists use these facts and their understanding of climate and weather systems to predict what impact this will have. This is where disagreement lies in the scientific community because different models predict different things and all are only ever as good as the data fed into them. But there is a broad consensus that a rapidly warming climate will be disruptive to weather patterns and make more extreme weather more likely and for a time will be more unstable and unpredictable. And we are seeing this pattern ever more frequently. It is also broadly understood that the reliability of our staple crops depend on fairly stable climatic conditions which they have evolved to thrive in. Change the climate and many of our staple crops could collapse.

Man made global warming is a proven scientific reality. We can argue about what it means for us and if we choose we can pretend it means nothing but better weather. But assuming that everything will be ok just because the scientific models do not agree on how bad it is all going to be is idiotic. Because scientists agree that the more we heat the planet, the more disruptive this will be to the climate, and the greater the likelihood of a global collapse in food production as well as increased coastal flooding and potentially more areas of the planet becoming too hot to survive there.

Only a fool  would think that because scientists cannot accurately predict exactly how bad it is going to be, the sensible thing is to do nothing.

It would be useful if the naysayers brought some actual science to the table, with links to scientific papers or studies. The rest of us can then look into that to see how reliable their sources are. Instead of just saying the models dont agree so it must all be rubbish or whatever else they come up with. It is like witnessing a bunch of flat earthers trying to argue with Galileo.

The ashes have been fanned back to flame. 
We are in the hands of the G Mods

However that is not the scenario we are dealing with. To keep to your analogy if the Consultants said she has only six months to live and presented the data to you for verification by others then three years later she was still fighting fit and the data you gave to other consultants to review indicated she may still be alive in ten years time would you have questions as regards the first consultants?
We are all Joe Public and the information is being presented to us to make us aware and to make us agree to the sacrifices demanded of us. If my emissions are important then everyone's emissions are important and Bill Gates (and many others) emitting several thousand times more than what I emit in my lifetime then perhaps a different type of 'sacrifice' should be considered.

Am I missing something? The difference between the two data sets is 'estimated' to be 0.03 per decade. That means there must be a level of uncertainty there and since global warming is supposed to be 0.08 per decade on average then what is that uncertainty? 
This all ties in to the uncertainties within the datasets themselves and all the uncertainties that lie with all the readings and the correction factors applied and the modern use of probes with instantaneous readings and the past use of copper buckets and before that any old bucket.

It tells you why, the new equipment is more accurate, that the current readings are more accurate as you would expect and still the temperatures are rising.