You seem to have missed the point. So, you are fine with adjustments to satellites to address orbital drift (they actually have to do a great many adjustments to the data to correct various confounds) but when data from other sources are refined in a similar manner to produce an ever more accurate picture of what is going on, suddenly that is “proof” of a conspiracy. I see.
If I seem contemptuous of the sort of conspiracy nonsense you post it is because I am. You want to have a rational debate? Fine. But interspersing it with claims that an entire field is lying to us is idiotic. And as I say, it is insulting to some of the greatest minds in science today, who have the creds and publications to prove it. Do you? Are you seriously suggesting you are qualified to judge them in this manner? Please.
Every field of science has to adjust complex data in order to compare apples to apples. It is not evidence of a conspiracy, it is evidence of constant improvement. The fact that it continues to show warming is not a conspiracy, it is evidence that the planet is warming. Even the skeptics do not disagree on this point, why do you?
Well. let’s look at the satellite data.
First, even noted skeptic Roy Spencer acknowledges the warming in the satellite record ( http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-global-temperature-update-for-feb-2016-0-83-deg-c-new-record/ ) and they have worked hard to try to correct the many issues with their data sets. They have a new data set out now which shows warming that is pretty well aligned with the surface record. You incorrectly stated that they “ignore” these data. Nonsense. The satellite data are incorporated into the models, and if you read the IPCC AR5 you can read all about these data and their role.
Second, satellites measure temperature from the lower troposphere, which is hugely problematic for measuring the totality of global temperatures. It nevertheless does show the warming we see with other measures, of course, as I pointed out above. Importantly satellite measures have also shown that the stratosphere is cooling at the same time the lower atmosphere is warming. This is a smoking gun for CO2 and the greenhouse effect. Moreover, if you want to assign the warming to some other variable than CO2 you need to explain why the greenhouse effect is magically NOT happening, since that would be violation of basic physics. Just because a field is confident about fundamentals doesn’t mean anyone believes there isn’t a great deal still to learn. But if we keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere the warming is a NECESSARY outcome because of fundamental laws of physics.
Third, the surface record and sea records are exhaustive and fit beautifully with the paleo record. We know the planet is warming. There is no doubt about this even among the skeptics, so what exactly are you arguing about?
Then you go on to claim that the warming by 2100 will be 0.3 C. Where do you get that kind of nonsense? The most optimistic increase is about 0.5 C (which falls in the extremely unlikely category), the most pessimistic is over 8C (also unlikely). The likely scenario is currently thought to be about 2.7 C, which is enough to melt the Greenland Ice Sheet and very likely large portions of the Antarctic Ice sheet as well eventually. And the warming will, of course continue after 2100.
The current global temperatures are about 1 C warmer than in 1880, and even conservative estimates put that change well above your claims (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php ). More importanly, the RATE is accelerating. Factors such as less reflective sea ice or increased methane release from melting permafrost will further accelerate this as time goes on.
Your numbers are demonstrably wrong. If you’re going to post stuff that is outside of what the science reports you’ll need citations or people will simply think you are lying.
Finally, your statements about the benefits of CO2 are truly silly. When scientists talk about the impact of CO2 on climate it is because that is their field of study. They are not agriculture scientists. Other scientists do study the impact of CO2 on crops and the consensus in that field seems to be the very modest benefits will be overwhelmed by the negatives of a much warmer climate and the acidification of the oceans. The latter issue alone could devastate food production for humanity.
But hey, go ahead and be an apologist for the fossil fuel industry. It won’t matter because the scientific consensus on this issue is very real and very solid. Moreover, the clever countries will invest in alternative tech and alternative energies because that is the future.