You ignore the fundamental unreliability of scientific data. Perhaps the scientists have simply collected more accurate data, or have revised their methods over the last 20 years to a measurement that consistenty yields higher temperatures.
The earth is said to be 4.5 billion years old. (4,500,000,000). We have "accurate" (and I use that term loosely) temperature measurements for about 100 years. This would be actual written down data that was observed by humans and recorded.
So doing the math that's a sampling rate of 100/4,500,000,000 or 2.2e-8 or 0.000000022%
So let me get this straight. We are supposed to believe these "scientists" with this kind of data? We are going to base policy on a sampling rate this low? That’s just bad science.
You can't make correct assumptions on that small of a sampling. Its not even valid to guess.
One last thing, to take a person's temperature, you put a thermometer in an orifice or under an arm. Taking the temperature of our churning planet, with its tectonic plates sliding around over a molten core, involves limited precision.
