my maths is diabolical but the level it works is above that of the IPCC models and graphs. The trendline relies on a 0.2 rise per decade minimum. Each decade below it lowers the trend for the century, and of course if it falls below positive later in the decade as it may well do then the trend may reverse.
However, at the current rate I simply used Dana Nuticelli's figures which echo your own view, and ran them through the formula by dividing 0.8C since 1850 till today, and the total is about 0.05C a decade for a rise from 260-400ppm CO2.
Now bearing in mind the foundations, doubling CO2 adds 1C with no feedback, 1/4-1/2 the total rise is natural, and the remainder is possibly from the added CO2 unless other factors such as solar rays and multidecadal oscillations can be found to explain them. So each decade is as important as any other as the trend while CO2 rises more and more is reducing in opposition.
Therefore as CO2 rises unabated, the temperature responds less and less, and tease out the natural rise, if you remove the adjustments as well you may well fall back to a zero temperature rise, as most graphs have been tilted to rise in the recent decades when they previously didn't.
There is no politics involved here, when I passed four science exams at 16 the figures spoke for themselves. They were not controversial and universally conditionally accepted, the condition being science constantly learns and while most processes are well known and repeatable many such as particle physics and man made elements are always growing over time. Any teenager presented with these simple figures would agree the trend is below 2C a century, and well below it, with the majority being caused by nature or unknown alterations. You can vote communist, socialist worker, national front, conservative, republican, anything you like, but these figures are the same for everyone, no different to sticking a thermometer in an orifice and reading the result, which is never adjusted.
So as an appendix, there is no place for people's politics here, mainly accusing the other side of being politically motivated. You either understand arithmetic and statistics or not, that's it pretty much. A little history, physics, chemistry and geology, all at school level will complete the picture, and the remaining complexities only explain the mechanisms behind the equations and not their results which is all we need to know the whole picture. So politics is unrelated and no qualifications are required, people who say they are can only be trying to protect their own arses by deflecting attention and claiming 'ordinary people' aren't able to assess scientific bullshit.
Yes we are.
Diverting our attention to future possibilities based on negligible changes takes it away from current problems we could be solving. It's a bait and switch method exploited by the media and politicians and stops people dealing with the mess they created which could be cleared up like starvation and poverty in the third world. Reducing CO2 will make that far worse and spread across the developed nations as CO2 emissions only rise as a result of economic growth.
Just as one causes the other directly, if you pull the other string and reduce CO2 emissions the economy will fall in direct proportion. The only time CO2 ever fell was during the economic crisis in 2008, another induced fall would be many times worse as it would stop factories producing and cause massive power shortages.