Using Actual Data Is “Cherrypicking”

Using the entire measured data set is “random cherry picking”

ScreenHunter_1208 Mar. 10 13.54ScreenHunter_1209 Mar. 10 13.54

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

59 Responses to Using Actual Data Is “Cherrypicking”

  1. Fred from Canuckistan says:

    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.

    • Hugh K says:

      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.

    • Winnipeg Boy says:

      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.

  2. jmrSudbury says:

    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

  3. sfx2020 says:

    Using actual recorded temperature data is cherry picking.


    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.

  4. A C Osborn says:

    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.

  5. theyouk says:

    Wait…What? “Random cherrypicking of raw data”….These people are mentally ill. I mean *seriously* sick.

  6. Stephen Richards says:

    Tony, what are you ? some sort of disinfectant.? Everytime you write a tweet it seem a worm comes out of the woodworK

  7. DHF says:

    “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.

  8. bleakhouses says:

    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.

      • bleakhouses says:

        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.

      • Menicholas says:

        You guys make me laugh so hard that milk comes out of my nose.
        And I was not even drinking any milk!

  9. sfx2020 says:

    OMG I missed that. “Random cherrypicking”


  10. chick20112011 says:

    “Climate Change” now being blamed for mummies turning into black ooze. Cherry picking “news” and assigning the blame to AGW.

  11. Dave N says:

    “Cherry picking” in alarmist speak is: “choosing entire datasets that don’t agree with alarmists”

  12. Disillusioned says:

    WTH is “random cherry picking”?

    Is that anything like sharply obtuse?

  13. SxyxS says:

    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.

  14. sfx2020 says:

    Why should anyone care about Mick West? Who is he?

  15. Andy DC says:

    The Patriots won the Super Bowl using cherry picked data.

  16. Thick Mick!

    • stpaulchuck says:


      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.

  17. Mac says:

    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.

    • Gail Combs says:

      Don’t forget “Big Oil Funded” and Hope favorite “trained Propagandist”

      • Mac says:

        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.

        • Gail Combs says:

          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.

  18. Jason Calley says:

    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?

    • B says:

      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.

    • Gail Combs says:

      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.

      • gator69 says:

        You know Gail, it is more helpful if you tell the troll. The choir gets it.

        • Gail Combs says:

          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.

        • gator69 says:

          I hope Tony collects all of this and buries her.

        • Gail Combs says:

          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….

        • gator69 says:

          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.

  19. sfx2020 says:

    Who is Hope?

  20. sfx2020 says:

    Ah, thanks. I remember that.

  21. Truthseeker says:

    Steve, the Australian Government is going to have a non-inquiry into the “non-problem” of bogus temperature adjustments. Read it all here …

  22. Kasuha says:

    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.

Leave a Reply