They ignore data that shows that CO2 levels lag temperature change.
That point is not ignored and no mainstream science has ever given you that impression. The reason the historical record shows CO2 levels lagging temperature is because unlike dissolving sugar in your iced tea, increasing temperatures in a liquid DECREASES its ability to dissolve gases. Thus as the Earth's temperature increases, say from changes in orbital position, CO2 and other gases dissolved in the Earth's oceans and other waters comes out of solution and into the atmosphere. This is a COMPLETELY SEPARATE PROCESS from the greenhouse effect which is driving global warming.
They ignore the fact that the data shows that at some times when the earth was cooler CO2 levels were higher and the earth was warmer when the CO2 levels were lower.
If you've been here often enough you should have seen a graph similar to this one from the EPA. These are radiative forcing factors:
Notice that some of the material entries have blue bars. These are radiative factors that result in the cooling of the planet. And, of course, when orbital mechanics causes the energy from the sun to decline, that tiny red bar, second from the bottom, can also become blue and quite potent. So, nothing is being ignored.
You also need to rid yourself of the idea that nothing can happen that hasn't happened before, particularly when you're discussing things caused by humans, who weren't here and weren't producing gigatonnes of greenhouse gases in the distant past.
They don't understand than prior to WWII climate data in the Southern hemisphere and a large part of Asia was very sparsely recorded. In addition, most temperature readings were made in big cities in Europe and America. Very few in rural areas. So any of their "hottest year on record" is bullshit because the record is very limited.
I am quite certain they understand it quite fully. It is they whose jobs are dealing with temperature records. You act as if they are blithering idiots. They are not. And the term "on record" precludes comparisons to unrecorded domains in space or time.
They ignore the fact that satellite data is not reliable because the sensors are only calibrated to +/- 4 F while they claim .5 F changes in the ocean's temperature.
The same argument applies here. They know this stuff better than you and I. There have been errors with satellite data, most famously those made by Roy Spencer and John Christy, which I might suggest YOU are ignoring as their error went in the other direction.
Also, none of their silly ass predictions ever come true.
They are a joke.
Their "silly ass projections" have been quite accurate. How accurate have been the repeated denier claims that global warming will soon end and the world will begin cooling? How accurate have been the claims that the observed warming is just some sort of 'SuperBall' rebound from the Little Ice Age? How accurate have been the denier claims that this warming is simply part of an interglacial cycle that, historically, is actually moving in the opposite direction?
Not very.