This isn't an answer, but too long for a comment.
The issues with this argument:
Is this data randomly sampled and reliable? Where does it come from?
How do you explain the temperature dip from 1940ish to 1965?
The area north of 60N makes up only 6.7% of the Earth's surface area. This increase could theoretically be balanced by a decrease in other area, such as Antarctica. To be fair, I don't think they would be, but an increase in 6.7% of the Earth's area isn't definitive.
As https://panethos.wordpress.com/2016/01/21/worlds-largest-cities-above-60-degrees-north-latitude/ notes, there are cities north of 60N (including Helsinki, the capital of Finland, with over 1/2 million people), so the urban heat island affect still exists.
You've asked similar questions before: keep looking for that "silver bullet" to prove global warming exist, but I doubt you'll find it. At some point, you'll have to define what "increasing" means when it comes to data that isn't strictly increasing.
@michael-walsby's comment "No educated person doubts that there is climate change" is just another example of personal attacks used in lieu of actual facts.
@david-hammen's comment is technically correct, but I'm not sure how many "full-blown deniers" there are. I personally believe there isn't enough evidence to determine whether the Earth's surface is cooling, warming, remaning about the same, and am further not convinced how dangerous warming would actually be.