Let me spell it out a little bit for Gronky and pals...I'm going to use a thing called...wait for it...logic.
I know, fellas...it's not something you're used to using. Just calm down and stay with me.
What you do first is remove the carbon dioxide tracking and just look at the temperature by itself. Then you ask a question: Is there a pattern here? Do we see a trend in the temperature data by itself?
The answer is yes - 30 year intervals, as I have already laid out.
Now, put the carbon dioxide trend back in and ask a second question: At what point could the rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide begin to influence the temperature graph?
Here are some possible answers:
1) 1980 - (Based on there being a lag between carbon dioxide introduction and influence) Unfortunately, this then rules out anthropogenic climate change, because we see that the trend has existed prior to the theoretical carbon dioxide influence and does not change after that. If the existing trend stays the same then carbon dioxide had no influence;
2) Well, then, 1940!!! - (Based on there being no lag, in order to try and consume as much of the non-carbon trend as possible to sway the trend in favour of carbon dioxide influence and establish some kind of argument) Unfortunately, we still have the problem of 1880-1910 and 1910-1940 that establishes the trend. In addition, however, no lag (and an immediate effect) is automatically killed by the fact that temperature drops from 1940, and does so again around 2000. This doesn't work, then, either;
3) Since 1880 - (In order to try and say that the entire trend is carbon influenced). Well, there wasn't enough of an increase between 1880 and 1920 to produce the 1920-1940 rise, so that's out of the question. And, if you still want to attribute the 1910-1940 rise to carbon (in order to salvage some kind of argument) then this falls apart when you see the 1970-2000 rise mirrors the 1910-1940 rise in scope, despite a significant increase in carbon. For this last possibility to be true, the 1970-2000 would have had to be significantly bigger, considering the significant difference in the 1880-1910 and 1940-1970 carbon dioxide levels. Unfortunately, this doesn't play out the way you would like it to, so this theory is gone, as well.
So, using ONLY the data that YOU provided, it is CLEAR that there is no way to attribute the 1970-2000 temperature increase to rising anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. At NO POINT can a trend be established that would illustrate causality.
But I'm cherry picking, right? I'm doing that by...using YOUR DATA, and doing so, in what must obviously be a bigoted way, IN ITS ENTIRETY.
In conclusion - #OrangeManBad.
Case closed, bigots.
Ok, let's have a little look at the logic here, we'll use your logic, and we'll expand on it somewhat in order to attempt to reconcile that which you argue with that which you omit.
We'll accept that we can break down the graph presented into the time frames you choose, and remove the effects of co2 for the moment. As you say, we can see periods of time where the temperature goes up, and the temperature goes down, so what that tells us is there is a variability in climate over certain timescales.
Using our logic, we can deduce that there must be forcings at work that create this variability, what they are of course we can not deduce from this graph, as we only have the two measurements at hand, but given we accept the data, we must also accept these forcings exist.
Now, bearing that in mind let's look at the graph in it's entirety, what do we see? What we see is that overall the average temperature has risen. Which again using our logic we can only deduce that for each of these periods of cooling, we have periods of warming that result in the average temperature rising beyond that of the previous period of warming, so over the entire timescale of the graph we see an accumulated overall rise in temperature.
So where does that logically lead us?
Well, we have logically deduced that there is a variability in climate, we have logically deduced that this variability must be created by some force or forces, and we have logically deduced that that given over all the temperature has risen, there is not equilibrium in these forces, or if you like cycles.
Thus we can logically deduce that there must be forces outside of the forces that create these cycles that result in increases of temperature over a longer cycle. So if we return the co2 levels back to our graph, and we note that there is an acceleration of temperature rises between these cycles that ( roughly ) corresponds with the accelerated accumulation of co2 in our atmosphere, we have correlation. A correlation that exists alongside a variability that takes into account that the data tells us that co2 is not the only driver of that variability.
You'll note I have chosen not to confuse correlation with causation, ( or causality as you put it ) because a simple graph can not prove anything but indicate a correlation, causation must be proved by other means, such as that we know co2 is a greenhouse gas.
