Using the entire measured data set is “random cherry picking”
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Ivy Echo Chamber
- Climate Homicide
- Much Ado About Nothing
- Homophobic Gas
- World Bank Expectations
- Trained Not To Learn
- Protecting Endangered Species
- Record Climate Cynicism
- Record Cynicism
- The Latest In Climate Science Rhetoric
- Climate Desperation
- Artificial Stupidity
- Climate Obsession
- The Climate Empire Strikes Back
- Climate Scam Parrots
- “I’ve dealt with him before ”
- “I’ve dealt with him before.”
- “BE HONEST”
- Turn Out The Lights – The Party’s Over
- Net Zero In The UK
- Turn Out The Lights, The Party Is Over
- Michael Mann Again
- Over The Target
- Michael Mann’s Latest Research
- “an amazing documentary dismantling the climate change theory”
Recent Comments
- Bert on Ivy Echo Chamber
- Conrad Ziefle on Climate Homicide
- Conrad Ziefle on Climate Homicide
- Russell Cook on Climate Homicide
- czechlist on Ivy Echo Chamber
- Russell Cook on Climate Homicide
- Dan A Sinema on Climate Homicide
- MLH on Homophobic Gas
- Billyjack on Climate Homicide
- Laurie on Ivy Echo Chamber
Obviously the concept of cherry picking is lost on young Mickey.
So much stupid crammed into a single ignorant statement.
His mother must be so disappointed.
Finally……something Mikey doesn’t like 🙂
“Random” (cherry picking) — versus the usual ‘selective’ cherry picking?!? WTF? I guess Tony can perceive this as an improvement.
So much stupid crammed into a single ignorant statement.
i read here recently a quote (from memory, sorry if i butcher your profetic words) Global Warming is an IQ test, results to be recorded on the internet.
I am impressed with how many estimated data show in Mick’s plot. The raw data starts near 1925, but his plot goes back to near 1895. It seems he does not realize that it is estimated. — John M Reynolds
Something similar happened to me during my sophomore year in high school. My teachers were cherrypicking only the recorded grades from assignments and tests I’ve actually done. They didn’t include my grade estimates for work I could have done and their final report didn’t reflect the grades I could have received if my hypothetical deliverables were counted.
+1
Nor does he realize the data he cites has been adjusted (how many times?).
I believe that database is re-written daily.
Did he notice that the raw data has less data? A lot less data!
Using actual recorded temperature data is cherry picking.
http://www.filedropper.com/evergladestemperature-wolframalpha-2015-03-10145813
source
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=everglades+temperature
You have to adjust the data, to get it’s mind right. If you use actual temperature data it usually shows a cooling trend for the last several decades, and that can’t be right, because physics.
filedropper link doesn’t seem to work. please delete.
here’s the image
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dvftQcbXdSg/VP9AIvttGWI/AAAAAAAAApw/rnzt-zsu2yw/s1600/everglades_temperature_-_Wolfram_Alpha_-_2015-03-10_14.58.13.png
Steve I hope you thanked him for proving your point about Raw v Adjusted data for you.
He fell in to the trap beautifully. his graph shows about 1.5 degrees cooling of the past.
And 1 degree warming around 2000 LOL.
There was no data between 1994 and 2007. All those flat lines that span multiple years have no data. It is all estimated. Only the actual dots are the data. — John M Reynolds
Wait…What? “Random cherrypicking of raw data”….These people are mentally ill. I mean *seriously* sick.
Giant midgets!
http://media.ourstory.com/11/77/91/25ee81ee77b82306c31f7ce1a4268d8faba96982/9281731847a820e2f518ef9e8a5a06c110ce50c6-l.jpg
Well, to be fair, you could cherry pick the endpoints that best show what you want.
God knows the climastrologists are masters of doing just that.
Tony, what are you ? some sort of disinfectant.? Everytime you write a tweet it seem a worm comes out of the woodworK
It’s crazy! “Random cherrypicking” is my new favourite term. And the irony that the data Mike is showing is partly made up. So now it’s cherrypicking to not use made up data. Just nuts.
LOL!
“Random cherrypicking” is obviously an incredible silly thing to say. Cherrypicking is “a kind of fallacy of selective attention” – if it is selective it cannot be random.
I wish I had something valuable to add but my brain is still recovering from the several “Hope” conversations here and elsewhere on the internet. I spent several hours contemplating how I could regain my hope in humanity and have only just now been able to get back to my regular daily tasks.
She’s using mind-numbing stupidity as a crude but effective weapon against skeptics. She may be smarter than we think.
Like what Bill Cosby said in “Himself” when he was funny:
“Fathers are the geniuses of the house because only a person as intelligent as we could fake such stupidity. Think about your father. He doesn’t know where anything is. You ask him to do something, he messes it up. That’s a genius at work! Because he doesn’t want to do it! And he knows someone will be coming soon to stop him from doing it”
Pure genius but it requires discipline. Just one slip up in showing intelligence could give it away and the wife’s wrath would be eternal and unbearable.
When executed flawlessly and there is not a breath of doubt that one is a real moron, the approach can take one all the way to the highest offices of the land, just like genuine idiocy does.
You guys make me laugh so hard that milk comes out of my nose.
Seriously
And I was not even drinking any milk!
OMG I missed that. “Random cherrypicking”
Priceless
“Climate Change” now being blamed for mummies turning into black ooze. Cherry picking “news” and assigning the blame to AGW.
http://www.livescience.com/50090-chinchorro-mummies-chile.html?cmpid=514627_20150310_41805906&adbid=10152613595396761&adbpl=fb&adbpr=30478646760
“Cherry picking” in alarmist speak is: “choosing entire datasets that don’t agree with alarmists”
+1
WTH is “random cherry picking”?
Is that anything like sharply obtuse?
“Random cherry picking”.
It does have a sort of witty ignorance to it.
I am guessing he had to think hard to be that stupid.
Every time I randomly cherry picked I wound up with peaches.
+1
(I’m in Florida… got oranges instead)
Isn’t random cherrypicking a paradoxon?
As cherrypicking is selecting” specific” data that fits your agenda/point of view
and random is the opposite of specific as random data has always different results.
Why should anyone care about Mick West? Who is he?
The Patriots won the Super Bowl using cherry picked data.
Thick Mick!
+1
these are the type of buffoons you run into on Yahoo! News (sic). They spew amazingly stupid stuff and fly directly into the face of published facts with outright lies.
Check this wiki page on ENSO
How they cut the graph at 1950
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o_Southern_Oscillation#mediaviewer/File:Enso-global-temp-anomalies.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o_Southern_Oscillation
The word “cherrypicking” is one of the most overworked leftist buzzwords on the internet, and in the entire world. “Straw man” is another of my favorites. It’s used any time you outsmart an idiot mongoloid leftist in an argument by citing facts.
Don’t forget “Big Oil Funded” and Hope favorite “trained Propagandist”
Hope is clearly suffering from some sort of severe emotional disorder, and, like most leftists, my guess is that it’s obsessive-compulsive disorder. Leftism isn’t a political philosophy at all. It’s a cult based on obsessing about non-existent problems.
She certainly seems to emote and not reason. She also cherry picks only the ‘facts’ she likes and ignores everything else.
Gator vs Hope on the law case are an absolute riot. She seems unable to understand you can not try a case twice. All an appeal court does is check and see if the lower court made any procedural mistakes…. Been there done that and it is darn expensive too.
Of course unless he happens to read this post, will he ever realize his error? Even if he does read this post, will he realize? Or will he just go on believing that he has commented a deep wisdom?
The priest class defines reality. That’s why the experts can change the data to match the reality they wish to construct. There is no error from their point of view.
Doesn’t matter either way. Look at Hope. Gator keeps tossing a court case at her with the judgement and she keeps saying the case has not been tried.
You know Gail, it is more helpful if you tell the troll. The choir gets it.
Gator, I am just enjoying your handling of her and did not want to get in the way.
Besides I am laughing too hard to think straight.
I hope Tony collects all of this and buries her.
Gator, your last shot at Hope — Here is the judge’s number shall I call him and tell him you are calling him a liar or will you? — was a grand slam out of the park.
Since Hope is the one who videoed the Flaming Well and plastered it all over the internet along with calling the judge a liar, she could end up in a world of hurt legal wise.
Actually it is Ranger Resources that needs to be given a copy of Hope’s incredible tap dance….
Too bad Parma John Doesn’t think so, but I guess he is OK with vile behaviour, killing the poor, and vicious personal attacks against our host.
I would love the opportunity to present Judge Loftis with Hope’s complete resume.
Who is Hope?
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/hope-and-chicken/#comment-500595
Her latest comment:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/hope-and-chicken/#comment-500593
She is a troll who tried to trap Steve into doing a video that she would edit to make him look like a fool. She has done that before to others.
Rosa Koire has some great example of the ‘editing’ done by the MSM to mislead the public.
http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/video-and-smear-articles.html
Ah, thanks. I remember that.
Steve, the Australian Government is going to have a non-inquiry into the “non-problem” of bogus temperature adjustments. Read it all here …
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/03/bom-forum-panel-one-day-wonder-rigorous-as-annual-cakes-and-tea-jamboree/#more-41372
What is more reliable? Raw data with errors of uncertain amplitude caused by UHI, station changes, instrument changes and observation procedure changes, or a homogenized record where attempts are made to correct for these errors?
Personally I don’t have any preference anymore. I don’t quite understand the homogenization procedure but I don’t believe they are inserting warming trends into the data deliberately. It might really be there or there might be some sophisticated problem causing it. In any case, the fact that I don’t like result of homogenization is no proof that the procedure is wrong.
It all falls down to the fact that all this game with averages of averages produces a tiny residual of actual temperatures. The difference of temperature in the morning and in the evening is way greater than how much the ‘world’ has ‘warmed up’ in last 70 years.