>>I've seen that posted several times on climate alarmist websites over the years. It's a simplistic and arrogant response meant to appear clever and thoughtful. It presents black-and-white conclusions from the alarmist standpoint and presents them as fact without definition. For instance, what if GW is real and we do nothing and the planet adjusts, flourishes and we as a species advance. Since this has already occurred at least once that we know of (950-1250) and the chart's assumption has no historical basis, it seems odd to arbitrarily choose the opposite consequence.
>
>At the risk of quoting Wikipedia:

At the risk of pointing out the obvious about GW wikis.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/10/21/wikipedia-bans-radical-global-warming-propagandist-editing-all-pages

<snip>

>Yes, that chart is overly-simplistic. That's kind of the point!

The point of the simplistic chart is to scare and intimidate. Just as the claims of "consensus" are meant to intimidate the masses into following any crackpot idea the alarmists have.

The temperature records have been manipulated.
The "peer-review" process has been corrupted.
The models cannot predict even 1 year accurately let alone 100.
The IPCC reports are awash with propaganda, (in direct violation of their own charter, mind you)

The entire house of cards regarding this hoax is collapsing. It's perfectly acceptable to admit when you've been had.
http://hw.libsyn.com/p/b/f/6/bf663fd2376ffeca/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf?sid=d033f2b569efb82f9f3a710a95e33ac8&l_sid=27695&l_eid=&l_mid=2336201