Well I did read it, and let me tell you what I read. I read a claim that the models continue to be adjusted to fit the new data and I read a response that no, the data is not being adjusted to fit the models. That's what's called a straw man argument. Instead of refuting the claim that's made, pick a claim that sounds vaguely similar and refute it instead.
Now, you say the AR4 model has been good. And you link to a graphic which does not say "AR4" anywhere on it and instead lists predictions from several models. And more importantly, doesn't demonstrate any controls.
Where's the chart that says, "the AR4 model predicted this line for 20% more emissions than we had and it predicted that line for 20% less emissions than we had, it predicted this line for the upper bound of the error band on the emissions we measured, and it predicted that line for the lower bound on the emissions we measured. Oh look, the actual prediction tracks the measured results while the test predictions clearly miss as expected."
I'm not just being rhetorical here. I've waited years to see a chart that said, "here's what happened, and here's what would have happened if we'd done X instead." With a change in result that's outside the error bands. I'm still waiting.
As for "consensus," you can dress it up as a survey of scientists deemed credible but in the end it's just a vote with a sloppy tally.