Prove it.
The plots you yourself have posted show a very good correlation between model predictions and actual observations up until 1998. You know what I'm saying is true. All the models missed the beginning of the warming hiatus in 1998. Occam tells us it is a great deal more likely that something in the way the world's climate works changed, than than that EVERYONE'S previously satisfactory climate models all went south in precisely the same way.
Do you not see how that throws MAJOR problems into the mix when you are predicting catastrophe if we do not make major changes globally in our economic and energy production?
If the models did not predict a rather large change like this and go off the rails, why are we to assume that the rest of the predictions are going to be accurate or even valid enough to make policy with. It does not really even matter why at that point, if you cant make accurate predictions then something is incorrect and needs to be addressed before we start making policy in order to see what the actual dangers might (or might not) be.
Think of it this way for a sec.. Back in the 90s when it looked like the political policy part of this AGW just might take off --- these Al Gorians had a WHOLE DECADE to get it done..
Then --- 10 years later ---- when the warming takes a hiatus --- they are the Worlds' Largest HEROES.. Tickertape parades, more Nobel Prizes, promotions, money and fame.
They all figured they'd be saviours by now... 15 years of reduced warming --- because THEY SAVED the PLANET..
Missed the party by a decade or so.....