Scientific analysis does not necessarily produce the results that internal personal logic thinks would be correct.
So, no, the articles do not explicitly claim linkage but the reasonable reader and or scientist can.
If you need to believe something, I will be unable to change your mind with expressed scientific understanding.
True. Quantum physics leaps to mind. However, it is also true, particularly with non-quantum physics, that frequently the simplest answer is the correct one. That our furnace has been turned up a few notches is the simplest and most obvious answer to global warming and there is clear, but not conclusive, evidence that this is the case. And yet, it is dismissed out of hand.
That said, I have stated in my previous posts that the main reason I doubt the facts and figures you espouse here is that so many of your colleagues have called for the silencing of those who do not believe in AGW. They speak of "deniers" in the hopes of equating those who don't believe man is the cause of GW with those who deny the Holocaust. Some have gone as far as suggesting that scientists who don't tow the AGW line should have their accreditation taken away or simply fired from their jobs. How does that fit into the Scientific Method? Since when was it OK to silence by force of law those whose evidence contradicts your theories? How can one claim to be a scientist when he or she reacts to contrarian scientists with all the fanaticism of a Spanish Inquisitor on the trail of a heretic? Throw out all the alleged facts you want, unless and until your colleagues and spokespeople (mainly politicians, journalists and political activists) tone down the hysterical shrieking it will be very hard for me and many others to take any data and conclusions you have to present with anything less than a boat load of salt.