The fact of the matter is, how can you say there is GW if you don't know what an average is? How can you say there is GW if you can't synchronize temperature readings? How can you say there is AGW when you have to continuously move the goalposts?
This same question came up back in the seventies. When everyone analyzed the subject they admitted that the earth's average temperature was of dubious value. From this sitting down and ironing all know aspects, the greenies, like Gore, Ehrlich and Hansen, all decided that the earth was warming, rather than cooling as they all previously had stated. Thus the Ice Age became AGW.
Of course both the imminent Ice Age and AGW are both caused by CO2. Now, how much sense does that make?
Go back to grade school and learn what an average is. Or at least learn how to read at a 12 year old level so I don't have to repeat myself:
The average IQ is 100. The does not mean that the average applies to every human being, especially not the dumbest deniers here on this website, at least one of whom evidently who spent his/her/its youth in juvenile delinquency learning nothing except how to be very stupid and very arrogant at the same time. Sagebrush is at least able to regurgitate a few of the relevant fossil fuel industry lies he has been brainwashed with.
Global warming means (look it up on Wikipedia and find a literate adult who can explain it you): "the rise in the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans since the late 19th century and its projected continuation."
Edit: Floss-brain, just because you can cut-and-paste the definition of average, doesn't mean you understood it when you posted this "question" as to how the globe can be warming if it isn't warming at every single point, nor that you even understand it now. Let's try one more example. If you go back to your pub, where you at least know how to get drunk, and stop parading your ignorance here, that would INCREASE the average intelligence of posters here slightly. It wouldn't mean EVERY single poster becomes smarter, it would just mean that the AVERAGE intelligence across all remaining posters becomes a wee bit higher - because the biggest moron dumping idiocies here has shut his mouth here to go open it at his local watering hole.
That is correct; it is global AVERAGE temperatures that are increasing, but some places are warming faster than others. I believe that some places are actually cooling!
There are a number of factors that can influence the climate locally; I understand that the increase in antarctic sea ice extent is du to increasing wind speeds in the area, this being related to the general warming of the southern oceans.
As for cherry picking, I don't think any reputable scientist would compromise his/her personal integrity or risk his/her professional reputation by such activity.
In any case, who would it serve?
Well land temps are not reliable so I look at the Hadcrut satellite data
The global average is not uniform across the whole globe, so states Hey Dook.
Why then do they call it Global Warming?
The accusation of "cherry picking" is sometimes leveled at sensible people who doubt AGW, how much more cherry picking can be done that cherry picking locations to record temperatures?
