All data is "cherry-picked" to some extent--you always make some sort of choice when presenting data. The questions everyone needs to ask when looking at such data in climate studies is "Why was this particular time period and region chosen?" "Would the data look the same if we looked at a different region?" and "Would the data look the same over a different time period?"

(1) They're not going to get into a peer reviewed journal anyway.

(2) Yes, that's a pretty accurate series.

Keep in mind how many people deny evolution.

And think they need to see Obama's birth certificate.

And any number of other delusions.

Also keep in mind that there's no money involved in those.

If the US addresses global warming, then the price of energy will increase.

Not nearly as much as the deniers say, but it will.

And the country is very divided today.

The wealth divide is serious and hurts the country.

If you're in the low half, you don't really have a lot of disposable income.

An increase in energy prices really is a concern.

However, that is going to happen -- it's only a question of when.

The longer it's put off, the worse it will be.

Most people do not know enough to cherry-pick data because that would require the ability to recognize valid scientific questions and properly define scientific hypotheses. What they do is ask stupid, irrelevant, and nonsensical questions (although they do not know that is what they are doing). This is particularly true of Deniers who―even if their brains were not diseased by ideological zealotry and paranoia―mostly are too scientifically illiterate even to define science, let alone formulate a scientific question or identify a legitimate dataset for use in hypothesis testing.

The correct answer has already been given by pegminer.

CR is cherry-picking his timescale for his own ends while accusing others of doing the same for theirs.