No one has real data to show that a higher block limit = more fees overall for miners, it is simply a misunderstanding of how transaction fees work in real life.
Here is real data that shows that over the last five years, higher block sizes = more fees overall for miners.
What are you talking about? Block size has unquestionably changed (increased) over the last 5 years. The increase in the block size--such that it's now approaching the anti-spam limit--is what has precipitated this debate.
Peter your chart is misguiding obviously as it shows an increase in transactions, not block size, all happening under the same limit.
The increase in fees paid is a result of more transactions, not bigger blocks.
There's nothing "misguiding" about that chart. It clearly demonstrates that more transactions equals more fees collected. That's why we should alter the blocksize limit to allow more transactions. If we don't raise the cap, the only way for revenues to continue to rise is to raise the fee itself. But if that gets prohibitively expensive for the average user, they'll simply transact on another chain and miners will get less revenue than they would with a larger blocksize limit. Forcing an unnatural fee market will not help scalability and will deter new users. A cautious, responsible and preferably (IMO) flexible increase that keeps centralisation to an absolute minimum is the best way forward. The only people still denying that are the ones who envision Bitcoin as an exclusive little club for the wealthy and frankly I can't wait to leave all those people behind.