Unsupported assertion, and factually incorrect. The earth hasn't warmed at this rate before.
Thus sayith thy Lord. It's up a half degree on average in the last century.
Actually, proxies go back millions of years. And "natural cycles" have causes, we know those causes, and none of those previous causes are in play now. The earth should be cooling, according the natural cycles. You can't just wave your hands around wildly and scream "natural causes!"; you have to identify a cause. Global warming science has done that, which is why it has such credibility.
We know what the causes are, the sun. The sun drives the weather. Your high priests of Warming didn't mention it? You sound just like a Moonie. "Believe and you will find tranquility..."
Skeptical Views of Global Warming
Skeptical Views of Global Warming
The view of most climate scientists is that rising CO2 in the atmosphere, primarily from human activity, is driving the current increase in global temperature. A recent summary of the case for CO2 as the main radiative forcing for the human influence on global warming is Collins, et al. An active internet discussion site for climate scientists and others is Real Climate.
But climate modeling is very complex, the stakes are very high, and there are numerous special interests. This situation is tailor-made for controversy. The following are some of the types of objections that skeptics of CO2-driven global warming raise:
The CO2 is not sufficient to drive the currently observed warming.
The atmospheric CO2 level has been up to 10 times higher in the past. Why weren't there catastrophic consequences then?
Much of this century's temperature rise was in early years when industrial emissions were small, and there was a temperature decrease during the postwar economic boom.
Ice core records show CO2 rises lagging temperature rises rather than driving them.
Surface warming is more than atmospheric warming, in contrast to CO2-driven models.
The global temperature of t he past century correlates more strongly with solar activity than with CO2.
The sunspot activity of our Sun and the associated magnetic fields divert some of the cosmic rays that nucleate clouds on the Earth.
So you think a new record low has to be set every year. Your lack of statistical acumen is noted.
How many years would work for you?
You should be working on your exit plan now, since you've got maybe two years left before the accumulating data makes your cult look like as crazy as flat earthers. I would suggest you immediately backpedal to the "But warming is good!" line of retreat. After than, you can later back up to "Okay, it's bad, but it costs too much to fix!". From that final defense line, you can simply slip into the jungle and abandon your cult.
So it will be another two years (theoretically) until it can be proven but here you are making "scientific" statements.