Raise the Hammer

If their models are based on good science, they should be no more than 5% off each year, for
at least five straight years.

There are two things there. 1) You don't know good science, I've shown that numerous times based on your vetting of sources that you believe. 2) Again, climate change models aren't predictive of year to year calculations. They are long term as the literature written about them makes abundantly clear. I will state that you have never once looked at the original report. Not even in passing. That is because you don't actually care about climate change or science. You only care about being an ass, for example continuing your linear interpretation, when even you looking at the data you present could pick any other two years over that period and get a different answer, even the cooling you latched onto before. Congratulations on keeping it linear.

We know there are several relationships affecting global temperature and the level of the relationship as well as their impact on each other.

If this is true, how can this statement be true as well?

As a better understanding of the relationships is developed, a better model is developed.

I begin to suspect that you were the guy that never took any science classes after grade ten. There are definitive correlations regarding things like CO2's ability to retain heat, and those things are reproducible to your imaginary standards of being able to measure when water freezes. CO2 predictable retains heat. It's so simple, that even you could run the experiment. Then things get increasingly tougher. You need to know how much CO2 changes. And fortunately there are measured records such as http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends... Fortunately, the relationship there is fairly straight forward, so even a scientific dullard such as yourself could see that there has been an increase in CO2 every year, and there are lots of stations, and they all show approximately the same data. We also know that anthropogenic sources of CO2 and other GHGs have been continually increasing since the industrial revolution. So the theory of AGW is that we've altered the composition of the atmosphere and that is causing warming. You can't argue with that. Well, you could, but you'd be making stuff up and well, your usual. So, you could argue with that, but scientists don't argue with that.
The major complications in modeling are that stored heat addition from increased GHG isn't the only thing that adds to the thermal budget, that there are natural sources of GHG, and that the entire system is a series of feedback loops where a change to a variable can have both positive and negative affects to itself or other variables through a number of pathways. So unlike your naivety in assuming a straight line to infinity based on two years data taken at your choice, it's actually a complex model, on a global scale that is improved upon as relationships are better understood. The key point to understand being that the only variable people have any deal of control over in the model is GHG emissions.