The certainty of the climate “experts” is astounding, given the paucity of climate and temperature data that is available. Good satellite temperature records only go back to the 1960’s giving us only 40 to 60 observations of annual temperature with a high degree of accuracy.

Global weather station data only goes back to 1900, so the number of annual observations rises to only 110+.

Single site thermometer readings (Central England Temperature) can maybe give us two centuries deeper in the past.

Past that, you are looking at temperature proxies like Pine tree rings, sedimentation patterns, environmental gas composition, etc. All those factors can work, but not at an accuracy of fractions of a degree.

The same thing applies to sun spots. We have several full cycles of robust sun measurement, but the the historical data is purely based on solar observations. Very hard to develop good solar models from such a small dataset.

The Daily Mail version cuts off the correlation with volcanic eruptions and the observational data going back to 1960. Weird, right? No idea why they would do that.

The uncredited graph published here is originally from the Daily Mail (Nov 3, 2013), who credit a chart by Dr Ed Hawkins.

Dr. Hawkins’ other charts with observational data going back to 1950 paint a much clearer picture. He also has a very helpful explanation about the difference between air temperature, and total warming of the planet.
http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/author/ed/

Given the predictions in question are comparatively recent, I’d expect the pre-1985 data to be retro-fitted. I agree (?) that if this is the case — or even were it not it — there’s no reason not to show it. How could it in any way discredit the generally-accepted claim being made?