The Hadcrut is LAND-BASED not SATELLITE-BASED, completely different datasets. Where is your SATELLITE-BASED data showing otherwise? You are comparing apples and oranges.
Here's a thousand years, perhaps you can show us the warming trend: <img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png/300px-1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png"></img> Does your "warming trend" require cherry picking a specific timeframe, by any chance? Like, you wouldn't dishonestly try to pick the start from the middle of an ice age or something, would you? Gah! You would! Here's a graph of the last two thousand years, perhaps you can show us the warming trend to which you're referring: <img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png"> </img> There doesn't seem to be one. Well, maybe it's just an artifact specific to your graph, here's another graph: <img src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png"> </img> Nope, not there either. Realclimate is not a left-wing website, nor is it "greenie." In fact, it has some of the top climatologists posting there. Humans caused the CO2. CO2 is proven to disproportionately absorb IR. QED, humans caused the increase in IR absorption.
No, I'm comparing HadCRUT to HadCRUT as supplied by the HadCRUT people. Select "HadCRUT" from the drop down on your website. Your website doesn't match the correct data. Simple as that.
Let's just do the same shit we've been doing since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, and hope for the best. Maybe the hole in the ozone will fix itself, and the artic and antartic ice cover will reconstitute itself. Let's go back to the coal soot covered everything days of Charles Dickens.
Now you have changed the argument to land-based surveys [Hadcrut]. I was referring to satellite data. Completely different issue.
Your HadCRUT data is wrong. Your satellite data is wrong (as I've already posted in detail). Your conclusions, therefore, are suspect. If you were in a murder lineup of business attired English gentlemen, you'd be the shirtless guy with the patch over one eye reloading a weapon. If the issue isn't "How many times can you get away with posting wrong data from non-primary sources while denying it" then you're right.
You brought up the hadcrut data, not me. You changed the argument. You did not show satellite data. The climate has been changing for billions of years. The burden of proof is on you. All you do is change the topic. Your issue is "how many times can you get away with posting out of context data and then changing the argument". All the governments that endorse MMGW also support Cap and Trade. So in the end it does not matter, as the same output of CO2 into the air by humans will continue.
The whois data for Realclimate.org shows that the REGISTRANT, administrative and technical organization is Environmental Media Services. It is in plain sight. If anyone used a webhost, they would list the registrant/admin/tech organization or person in the whois data.
I didn't a cherrypick anything. How exactly do you cherrypick a trend? Please explain. I notice you did not post a graph with temp from the last 15,000 years. I wonder why that is? It is you who is cherry picking data and graphs. The overall cycle runs approx. 100,000 years. So your cherrypicked data of 130 years does not show a true picture of the cycle. No wonder you are so confused.
Your graphs include data from the discredited fraud Michael Mann. Well done. Trying to actually pass the 'hockey stick' off as real science.