Subby, check out this spectacular 1 minute video of the temperature reconstruction from Greenlandic ice core data.

It's just a few still frames. Year is the X-axis. Temp is the Y-axis in Celsius; it's in the -30s because it's, you know, ... Greenland.

Each new frame looks at a longer inclusive time window, so make sure you can see the previous graph in each new graph.

And note the magnitude of the Temp scale changes as you progress.

Now ask yourself:

1) Is climate (which is really just the 30 year moving average of the graphs) stable?

2) When you look at the hockey stick, is there ANYTHING about it that stands out as abnormal relative to the rest of the signal? If you had never heard of "climate change," would you look at these graphs and shout "Holy fuck, look at THAT!", with your finger immediately pointing to that insignificant blip Mann dubbed the hockey stick?

3) When you look at the last graph, are you aware that there are some 30 more of those huge spikes going back a few million years. Each peak an interglacial respite in the still-ongoing Quaternary Ice Age. We are in an interglacial peak now - the Holocene. But we are still in an ice age. And the next glacial plunge will come. Although it isrelativelywarmer now than it has been during this ongoing ice age's glacial periods, today is still almost thecoldestEarth has ever been.

4) People prattle on about, "Well, it's not the temperature change itself, it's therate of changethat's too fast for man and other life to adapt to." Okay, basic calculus: rate of change is the slope of the graph, the first derivative. Is thereanythingabout the slope of the hockey stick that is more dramatic than all the other slopes of the graph?

Life has thrived through dramatic changes in temperature and their rates of change. In fact, those changes both cause, and are caused by, the spectacular evolution of life. Temperature shapes life, and life shapes temperature. Always has and always will.

So why is it suddenly a problemnow?

When alarmists start to get cornered on their flimsy temperature arguments, they move the goal posts to: "Well its not the magnitude, but therate of changethat's unprecedented in all of history, and too rapid for life to adapt to."

Again, the rate of change is merely the first derivative of the temperature graph. It would be trivial for alarmists to generate the derivative of the temperature data, and show that the current rate is the highest in Earth's history.

I ask you, have you EVER SEEN such a graph?