In other words, they labour under the illusion that climate change will treat every square mile of the globe equally, without variation, because it is "global climate change"; and so they find a narrow area of the globe that fits their pre-conceived climate viewpoint, then cite that as representative of the whole picture around the globe.
Thus, their analysis can't help but misrepresent the case.
The reality is that some areas may warm up for a time, then cool for a time, some areas will grow drier while others become wetter, rain measurements will fluctuate, but in general over the long haul there is an observable trend.
For example, Arctic sea ice so far this year is not radically out of whack when compared to some recent years, however, the big picture is:
(NSIDC, emphasis added). There is a general trend which can be observed in a thirty year window, but which may not appear in some areas using only the results of a few years.
Arctic sea ice reflects sunlight, keeping the polar regions cool and moderating global climate. According to scientific measurements, Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over at least the past thirty years, with the most extreme decline seen in the summer melt season.
For example, if we take Greenland, the sea ice in Greenland is at its lowest in 800 years, not just 30 years, and within that 800 years there has been fluctuation up and down.
The thing to focus on, then, in global climate change analysis, is trend over a longer period of time.
Challenges to some who embrace the local weather focus led government officials to order that ice-field photographs from satellites be kept secret.
These localized photos could scare anyone who did not realize you have to keep trends as well as the global picture in mind.