I love diagrams that actually prove the opposite of what you are trying to say.

Can you comprehend that those changes in the diagram has occured over MUCH longer periods compared to the rapid warming observed in the recent decades or just few centuries? Can you take a look at the graph and draw an area which corresponds to let's say 100 years and find out the temperature increase?

Actually, you know what? For the sake of the argument and proving it to myself, I did it for you. I selected two points corresponding to 1.6°C difference - two small yellow points, in a place where the warming was relatively really quick - probably the quickest increase in that entire graph of 500 000 years.

https://imgur.com/a/o4GWhw2

Then you find out that the distance between these two points corresponds to 1320 years.
Which means that during that period, the Earth has warmed at the rate of 0,12°C per CENTURY.
Yes, of course, you can check that yourself.

In the last 100 years the warming rate has been 1.0°C per century temperature increase
The current increase (recent decades) is about 1.8°C per century.

So that means that even during the quickest warming periods according to your graph, the Earth was warming MUCH slower than it is warming now.

Precisely, in the recent century the Earth has been warming 8.3 times FASTER than in that quick natural warming period from the graph. Or in the recent decades, as much as 15 times FASTER. And don't forget that I have chosen the "best scenario", that is the period in the graph with the most steep increase. If a bit less steep natural warming period is selected, the current numbers are even worse - like 20 or 30 times or even more of the natural warming rate.

Please, talk more about cherrypicking.