You are reading the instrument record of the current times vs the proxy temps of the past. Comparing a progression of climate measured by one method and then switching at any point to different data collection technique invites error. The proxy temps of current show that the temperature now is lower than in the past.
It is certainly the case that if one is using one method and then aburptly switches to another method, that extreme care must be employed to insure the integrity of the data and the projections made from such data. This simply isn't an issue with the graph in question which employs a multitude of proxies for pre-instrument data, and in fact does not quit using much of the proxy data during the transition to modern data representations, it merely overlays and highlights the instrument measurements because we are certain of their degree of precision and accuracy. Now it is rare that proxy information is used for the most modern data points (those of the last 50 years or so), primarily because we have much greater coverage and precision with the instrument data. This said, climate science isn't resting on past accomplishments and is continually looking for new pre-instrument proxies and testing and refining the reliability and accuracies of all proxy measurements and benchmarking them against the instrument standards.
I am certainly no expert on the broad spectrum of proxies, but I am familiar with the overall procedures and processes, so if there is any specific and particular proxy issues that you would care to discuss in more detail I would be happy to share my understandings and provide references for my understandings where possible.
Anecdotal evidence supports this as glaciers that are receeding now are receeding to points that they were at many thousands of years ago.
If the receeding glaciers of today are put forth to prove warming, then the proof that they advanced from points we are now at at a point in the past has to be, by the same logic, that the climate at that time was dropping and has remained low until now.
If that is the case, and it is, then this is far from being an Anthropogenically induced departure from the normal state of things. If anything, this would show that we are simply riding the global and natural cycle of climate variation.
Ötzi the Iceman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The global average records are what they are, but there are issues that many forget about when looking at issues like Otzi. It must be understood that regional warmings and coolings happen despite global trends and events. Issues like the Medieval Optimum and the LIA clearly demonstrate that regional and even hemispheric anomalies occassionaly buck the global trends causing some areas to experience decades or even centuries worth of cooling or warming, while the overall planetary trend is different.
And of course, regardless of records of the past. We understand and can demonstrate the atmospheric "greenhouse effect," we can measure the precise levels of GHGs in the atmosphere, and we can compellingly demonstrate with multiple lines of evidence precisely where those gases are coming from. So even if we throw out ever bit of mountain range of evidences prior to 1800. We can still compellingly support and demonstrate the scientific basis of AGW, its causes, its ultimate results and the needed actions to remediate the worst of its potential impacts.
We can indeed. We can also compellingly demonstrate that predicted outcomes of those Scientific bases deviates from the actual performance of the climate.
One must wonder if the actual performance is wrong or if the predictions are wrong.