Watts Up With Using U.S. Data, to Seemingly Refute GLOBAL Temperature Claim

According to the "Watts Up With That" home page, it is "the world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change."

But yet Watts Up with questioning global temperature extremes, then immediately assessing U.S. extremes instead:

According to the Northeastern University press release, using climate models and reanalysis datasets, the authors found that:

While global tem­per­a­ture is indeed increasing, so too is the vari­ability in tem­per­a­ture extremes. For instance, while each year’s average hottest and coldest tem­per­a­tures will likely rise, those aver­ages will also tend to fall within a wider range of poten­tial high and low tem­perate extremes than are cur­rently being observed.

But is there any evidence that this has been happening? We can check what’s been happening in the US, by using the US Climate Extremes Index, produced by NOAA.

It's perhaps inadvertent, but there's a major sleight of hand here:  "Is there any evidence that this has been happening?" -  with "this" being an increase in extreme temperatures around the entire earth - leads immediately to checking the contiguous U.S., which represents about one-fiftieth of the earth.  

We could check what is happening in the U.S., and even do so in an article initially focusing on a claim regarding global temperature extremes.  A non misleading way to do that would be "global extremes may be increasing, but in the much smaller surface of the contiguous U.S., it looks like they have not been."

This article, instead, overtly questioned whether temperature extremes have been increasing globally, and then seemed to "check" it by looking at temperature extremes data for a very small patch on that the globe that represents 1/50th of so of its surface.

The article also noted (emphasis added):

Of course, the US only accounts for 2% of the Earth’s surface... but it seems a sensible place to start. 

But 2% of the earth's surface is not a sensible place to start. When questioning a claim that the globe has experienced an increase in extreme temperatures, a sensible place to start, and finish, is on global temperatures. Not 1/50th of the globe. Yet this article started with that 1/50th, and stayed with it until the end.

Did any commenters happen to catch this? No, apparently. Many did jump all over the Climate Change is all but a hoax bandwagon, however. For instance: 

--"See, your mistake here is you used the real data. To get the right answer your supposed to use a model."

--"Someone should have presented this at Kodra’s dissertation defense." [Note, the original Northeastern dissertation paper that projected future temperature extremes, in part due to a record of globally - not U.S. - increasing extremes, was in part authored by Evan Kodra as part of his 2014 dissertation.]

--"May I remind you of the first rule of climate ‘science’ , where the models and reality differ in value it is reality which is in error. So you see no problem here"

--"I would love to comment, but I legally can’t; because The Nature conservancy persuaded me into signing into a gag easement……… so I lost my right to voice my opinion."

--"This is a good example of how easily empirical data clobbers the vaporous theories of the global warmers." [Note: It's particularly easy to clobber a claim when something entirely different than the claim itself is being clobbered.]

--"I am so sick of the Climate Conjecturologists.
“While global tem­per­a­ture is indeed increasing”? Not really.
“So too is the vari­ability in tem­per­a­ture extremes”? Apparently not.
“Each year’s average hottest and coldest tem­per­a­tures will likely rise”?
“Will likely rise”? When? After a lengthy hiatus? Or likely not?
“Those aver­ages will also tend to fall within a wider range than are cur­rently being observed”?
“Tend to”? What the heck is that supposed to mean? Either they will or they won’t."[Note, in some ways this is one of the better comments. It's earnest, and, aside from a few flagrant mistakes, captures the heart of why, along with of course a huge desire, there is so much misinformation supporting the idea that Climate Change is not a big deal, and why it is so easy to give such zealous attention to furthering that notion. And that is that the issue is not simple, it is not already "proven" in advance, there is an enormous lag (the most critical yet most misunderstood point), it is confusing, and that it imprecisely represents a range of outcomes, all of which are what happen when we conduct an enormous super long term global experiment of geologically radical proportion on the only earth globe we know: so there is no "control variable" earth, and nowhere near the advance precision both in climatic response, and in our ability to precisely outline in advance the direct path of any change, that Climate Change refuters or minimalists have come to expect.]

Here's another recent example, that goes through a lot of highfalutin and seemingly relevant (but largely misconfigured and not relevant) science analysis, and then, suddenly, and stunningly, concludes that the large recent increases in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide levels we've been measuring?

The same increases to levels not seen in at least two million years...the same increases, to now just over 400 parts per million, from the high 200s just a few hundred years ago, when from fairly precise ice core data we know that levels never exceeded the high 200s parts per million over the past eight hundred thousand years, the same levels that geologically have, "out of the blue" suddenly, after seemingly millions of years, just shot straight up, coincident with massive deforestation and, via fuel combustion, the rapid release into the atmosphere of carbon that had been slowly sequestered over many millions of years of non fully decomposed plant matter?

A one in ten thousand or one in one hundred thousand or so, and otherwise wildly inexplicable (notwithstanding a rather wildly inexplicable argument) and sheer coincidence between the sudden, massive net additions we've made, and the sudden rise after nearly a million years, and likely several million?

More, even:  For the conclusion was,

How can it be made clearer that CO2 is currently rising and varying for natural cause?

Not just that sudden, massive, multi million year CO2 increases essentially have little or nothing to do with the sudden, massive, decrease in world sinks of CO2 (deforestation), and sudden creation of long (fossil fuel) dormant emissions, but, "how could it be made clearer."

Anything - from the "world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change," the site that also according to its home page, of which Johnathan Moseley from The American Thinker asserts, "changed the world and is one of the most influential resources on global warming" - to refute man affected Climate Change, rather than objectively, consider it. And anything to not believe it.

How could it be made any clearer.