I've not ignored those sources, and neither have the scientists. They made assessments based on limited data and have been able to reassess those with more data and clearer understanding. As they said back then (underlined in red below) the "observations present many problems of interpretation." That's the First Assessment Report that you posted charts from in the OP.
I'm quite happy to accept that in 40 years we have learnt a lot, found more historical data to assess - as I've read elsewhere, but will not attempt to hunt out now, and have revised our understandings and interpretations of that data. Science is not about standing still and learning nothing. I don't jump to the conclusion of fraud.
