I'm not a climatologist.
Then shut up.
" However, I understand science and statistics "
The claim made by everyone who doesn't know what they are talking about.
As an example , in no way did they " adjust the data in order to reach your conclusion".
This also tell me you have no clue what you are talking about:
"The warming in the data is almost exclusively due to the adjustments supposedly to account for urban heat islands. However, without those adjustments, the temperatures are pretty flat."
Lets set your admitted ignorance aside ad go straight to the base science:
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it passes right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strike an object, IR is generated. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
4) Greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, absorb energy(heat) from IR. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
5) Humans produce more CO2(and other green house gasses) then can be absorbed through the cycle. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
Each one of those has been tested, a lot. You notice deniers don't actually address the facts of GW? Don't have a test that shows those facts to be false?
So now you have to answer:
Why do you think trapping more energy(heat) in the lower atmosphere does not impact the climate?