Uh-oh! This revelation has to really hurt. It seems that the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) crowd do some picking and choosing (otherwise known as "cherry-picking") of data in order to try to support their position(s). At the same time, they ignore and/or suppress data harmful to their position(s). Permit me to be specific by providing examples -- something the AGW crowd will never do.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) said on January 8, 2013, " The facts speak for themselves - whether it is NOAA's announcement today that 2012 was the hottest year on record or the devastation caused by Superstorm Sandy, predictions of dangerous climate change impacts are coming true before our eyes." From where or whom did Boxer get her data? Did she even bother to check its validity? Boxer used the (always objective - not!) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) report as her source, but is it too much to ask a senator to verify her data? Boxer made a fool of herself by quoting NOAA without looking at other data sources.

But don't worry, Barbara, because I can provide some research that you seemed to have missed and/or suppressed. Technically, you (and NOAA) are correct -- 2012 was the warmest year for the contiguous 48 states. But do you really want to hide behind a technicality? This is an example of cherry-picking at its very worst. Somehow Boxer "forgot" to mention that 2012 was not the warmest year for the entire U.S. (which includes Alaska and Hawaii), or for the North American continent (which includes Canada). '

Let's see: AGW includes the word "global." Boxer also "forgot" to mention that, globally, 2012 was the 9th-warmest year of the past 34 years. By the way, weather satellites have been measuring global temperature for the past 34 years.

The United Kingdom Meteorological Office says that global temperatures have remained unchanged for the past 15 years. Says the U.K. Met office: "According to the data we already have, taking the errors into account, 2012 is statistically identical to all the other years of the past decade and beyond. The recent global temperature standstill continues." Did Boxer (and other AGW proponents) conveniently "forget" to mention that little fact as well?

The U.K. Met office continues: "This variability in global temperatures is not unusual, with several periods lasting a decade or more with little or no warming since the instrumental record began. We are investigating why the temperature rise at the surface has slowed in recent years, including how ocean heat content changes and the effects of aerosols from atmospheric pollution may have influenced global climate."

Here is an example of cherry-picking by the AGW crowd. They fail (on purpose?) to cite from The Observatory , edited by Dr. David Whitehouse, this information:

Now I beg to differ. Since instrumental temperature records began in about 1850 lengthy standstills, such as the one between 1940 - 80, are evident. But we are not in that regime. We are supposed to be in the era of anthropogenically-dominated global warming. The IPCC put the transition between natural and anthropogenic influence as 1960-80. Since the global temperature started to rise about 1980, and continued to 1997, this makes the lack of variability seen in global temperatures since 1997 highly unusual. Indeed, as we have said before, it is the recent warm periods major characteristic, and climate models strain to account for it.

Notice that Dr. Whitehouse makes two rather profound statements. First, he says "continued to 1997[.]" Second, he says, "[A]nd climate models strain to account for it." So, if Dr. Whitehouse is to believed, any computer-based climate model that makes a prediction of AGW based upon what has actually happened since 1997 -- when AGW, according to the IPCC, ceased -- is an example of cherry-picking.

The Whitehouse comment about being "in the era of anthropogenically-dominated global warming" also makes the IPCC's claim that AGW is a current problem look silly.

Dr. Whitehouse continues (emphasis mine): "To summarise: There is no point in putting out conclusions about the global temperature for any year until all that year's data is available. It is misleading to only say that the global temperature rise has slowed down since 1980, when the evidence is that it has remained unchanged for the last 15 years. The 15-year standstill is a real feature in the data. Arguments that it has been cherry picked are irrelevant." When Dr. Whitehouse says "cherry picked," he is referring to the fact that all data should be included -- that is, that the 1997-2012 data should not be cherry-picked for exclusion. Got that, Barbara?

And here is another little nugget of news that Boxer and the AGW crowd seemed to have "overlooked." According to Dr. Whitehouse, "... the UK Met Office had changed its near-term global warming forecast quietly on Christmas Eve[.]" Whitehouse continued, "What he [Bishop Hill website blogger Roger Harrabin] didn't put over was that the Met Office can't explain the standstill and are working hard to do so, but they believe that the Sun and the oceans could be a factor."

Here are other news items that Boxer and the AGW crowd "overlooked." The Chinese are experiencing one of the most severe winters in recent history. The UK Daily Mail says that the entire U.K. can expect an "Arctic Blast." The MeteoGroup said: "The minimum temperature in the U.K. will be into minus figures." Even The New York Times got in on the act, citing the NOAA report and its other always-reliable source: The Weather Channel.

Cherry-picking? Probably, but the cited instances illustrate how cherry-picking data by selecting one instance to support a position can distort an entire data set. This illustrates why you should trust your data and analysis sources, and, based upon your own research, reach your own conclusions.

But all of this AGW hand-wringing may be for naught -- or not. NASA's James Hansen, on January 17, 2009, told the U.K. Guardian that "Dear Leader" President Barack Hussein Obama had only four years to curtail AGW. So, according to Hansen, we have only this year to stop AGW. We must conclude that, since there are few (if any) signs of the effects of AGW, Hansen was guilty of cherry-picking data as well.