It seems to me that the planet's climate is so massive and complex that no one, not even the fabled scientists, can predict what it is going to do in terms of a human lifetime or two. The observation that the temperature graph doesn't track the CO2 level and that temperature can go down in any particular year even though CO2 has gone up can probably be scaled similarly to decades or even centuries. You may not actually observe warming for centuries, but it doesn't mean that the long term average isn't going up because of the CO2.
The problem is that 'evidence' of warming must be provided for the politicians and the people - even though such evidence may not actually exist because of the aforementioned planet-scaled complexity and timescales. It is *this* motivation for probable distortion of science that I object to. It is *obvious* that scientists have a motivation to tweak their models for a desired outcome - double blind they are not! And it is obvious that politicians will use this idea for their own purposes, and that big business will use it as a whole new growth opportunity.
I just hate hearing otherwise intelligent people saying "Weather occurrence X is probably because of Climate Change...", or "This hot summer in country Y proves Climate Change..." because any fool can do the same thing in the opposite direction. The adult argument is that CO2 causes warming regardless of what this month's 'evidence' says - and if this can be proved rationally then it is a 'slam dunk' argument. People might even believe it, whereas at the moment they laugh at the scientists every time we get a cold winter and basically ignore the idea - and they vote accordingly.