YES, isolated.
You exhibit a typical denier's cherry-picking mode of operation.
Not much of a challenge for a psychologist, I'd imagine.
One observation that contributes to my skepticism about the validity of the AGW hypothesis, is the quality and rationality of the arguments presented by those who support and believe in the hypothesis.
For example, on this forum, I provided a link to a very detailed record of past weather events in Great Britain, going back as far as 4000 BC. In more recent centuries, such as the 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th century, the record summarized the weather for almost every single year in each century.
The detail presented would fill a large book, or would represent a 6 hour video, or maybe 10 hours, depending on how fast the presenter spoke.
So to give readers an idea of the sorts of details and descriptions that are presented on the site, I extracted an example which covered a four year period in the middle of the 17th century, and which also revealed the limitations of the available evidence, because the records for Scotland during part of that 4 year period were lacking.
So now I am accused of cherry picking, even though the weather during those 4 years was not conducive to the growth of cherries.
However, since I'm a rational and naturally inquisitive person, I'd like to learn how I could have better chosen an extract as an example, which wouldn't have resulted in the criticism
'typical denier's cherry-picking mode of operation'.
Stretching my imagination, the only completely unbiased method I can think of, would be to print out every description of every weather summary on that website, which would be several hundred, or a thousand or more, fold up the printed paper for each description, place them all in a box, then extract one of them, as in a lottery.
The result could be a very brief and banal description of average weather for a particular year, or it could be the one I actually chose.
What method would you recommend, Bart?