You, in summarizing what scientists know with virtual certainty (where virtual is a cop-out), have juxtaposed A and B. This does not show A causes B.

To show A causes B, or that A causes 90%, 75%, 50%, or 25%, or 1% of B requires a lot more data than is present and analysis that has not been done. The climate has been changing forever due to collosal factors and these have a complex interplay that is not understood.

Cherry picking a data set for a single-variable analysis over a short period of time will simply not yield a meaningful conclusion in this kind of system. For example, if the latest warming trend was already underway before the industrial revolution, then disambiguating a human component vs. the "natural" chaotic component is impossible because we simply do not understand, in a predictable way, that chaotic system.

The very short data-set used to "prove" human impact on warming is not even a blink in the eye of time-scales involved in warming and cooling trends, and its magnitude is dwarfed changes from the chaotic system.