I think you have lost the plot, literally. Don't you think it's a bit farcical to be arguing the toss over a 10 year trend when it is the trend over thousands of years that counts. The link to a more relevant plot is below.
However, firstly an understanding how the weather works is essential because the greenhouse effect depends, in the final analysis, on water vapour. The theory of AGW is all about how a small amount of CO2 will alter the status quo. Given we have weather cycles that run over six decades surely is sufficient reason to realise how absurd it is to look for trends over periods any less. That is not to say that there may be even longer cycles that as yet have not been identified. If you don't yet understand the weather, should you be debating the greenhouse climate change case.
