No, short-term trends over-power long-term trends in the short term. That is why it is really easy to pick out isolated time periods in a long-term trends that defy the trend at least temporarily.
Ok, so, as has been pointed out, previously, the long term trend data for well placed temp stations is declining. Only around heat island cities do we see warming. I know, it's too nuanced to see it, but hey, give it a shot. Now, explain, if you will, why this observable data then must be "warmed" in the smoothing exercise to "create" the model? And if the data set has been so molested as to demonstrate this, why accept that it has any veracity? So, the long term trend is that it warmed, after a very cool period in history. This should happen, right? So, the hard part is to explain why. So far, no one has actually explained the natural dynamic to any extent. So, if you can't explain why temp moderation happens naturally, how could anyone ascribe real credibility to any associable process that explains it anthropogenically?
Once again, the BOM (Bureau of Meteorology) have mucked it up in Australia having completely removed some record cold temperatures collected in July. The "error" was ascribed to an automated data quality algorithm that "assumed" that these temperatures were so out of the expectation, they were simply removed. Of course, the director claims that nothing untoward should be assumed, except for the fact that, well, removing the data fundamentally discredits their overall process.