Here is NASA's view. 
You seem to use the phrase "warming due to emissions" as both evidence and conclusion.
Moreover your argument in this thread implies several premises that seem dubious, including:
1) Number of sun spots is closely proportional to solar output.
2) The global temperature of the Earth is well defined and consistently measured over the past 100 years or so.
3) The temperature graph you supplied is based on the best of these measurements available, and not just chosen to be most supportive of global warming (it wouldn't be derived from "Mann's hockey-stick" would it?)
4) The level of CO2 and sun spots are the only significant players in the scope of the graph shown, i.e. there are no signifigant confounding factors.
See my commentary on the "chart" above...
Looks like Sux got himself sucked out of FR...
The surface temperature records are made up of lots of speculation and estimation. Urban warming effect in land records, for instance, is often corrected for by linear regression referenced to area population - pure speculation. But acceptable by those who do their PC peer review - but clearly flawed. Consider the variables: increased energy use in the urban area, air conditioning, cars, heating, elevators, lighting, heat absorbing materials, suburban workforce, higher employee efficiency, etc., etc.
I've noticed that local weather reports often have my nearby city 5 degrees F warmer than my surroundings. Apply that to the temperature records, and you might find global cooling!
Here is NASA's view.