Please explain your logic, focusing on how anthropogenic causality SHOULD appear in the data.
Isn't that the basis for the whole "Global Warming" dogma? ...that it's happening as a direct result of mankind's use (overuse?) of fossil fuels? Without proven anthropogenic causality, what are we to do? If the alleged warming is not caused by man, I would argue that it is outside the control of man. If it is outside the control of man, yet still occurring, we should prepare for survivability, rather than engage in futile efforts of reversal. Without anthropogenic causality, solutions like Kyoto are meaningless and empty from the outset.
Now, all of this is, of course, predecated upon the assumption that a trend of warming outside of normal fluctuations is, in fact, occurring at all.