You can even - if you wish to - consider human climate drivers just another "natural phenomena" - we are part of nature, after all.
We just happen to be a natural phenomena which is raising CO2 concentrations pretty quickly on the time frame in which we have been operating.
And there is nothing about this observation which implies that on a longer time frame there might be other natural phenomena which would act as more significant drivers of climate, or that over shorter time frames there may not be other natural phenomena (such as volcanic activity) that might be even more influential.
So what often strikes me as odd about this debate is the conviction that human activities are somehow so "different" that we are reluctant to apply quite well understood aspects of physics and chemistry to evaluating their likely results.
I disagree that the modeling of the complex systems that comprise earth are well known enough to be accurately simulated.
You’re doing a good job presenting some of the data. There are problems with the data though. Now that the data is out in public, people are going to plow through it and as it is filtered by common scientific sense (and not just by people looking for global warming), the average will become valuable.
It is not the differences that matter. All that matters is the magnitude of the influence. And you cannot warm the Earth with increased CO2 significantly at this point without a positive water vapor feedback. And to get that positive feedback in your models, you have to ignore clouds and rain.