Fair winds & following seas, Jim.

I love it when people try to sell books telling us how stupid we are.  Marketing genius.

We buy one = proof positive.

Interesting thread, for those not already exhausted.

You can't argue with idiots, you can only survive them

Guess what. Germany is currently facing the longest and coldest winter since 1983. Go figure...

When you consider the monkey shines GISS have been doing with the recording mechanisms, the figuring is not hard:

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Scientists+using+selective+temperature+data+skeptics/2468634/story.html

http://crapstats.wordpress.com/

http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/ghcn-gistemp-interactions-the-bolivia-effect/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/29/yamal_scandal/print.html

When you can't disprove the science, try and discredit it through social networking web 2.0 websites! Awesome!

Instead of getting your science from crap social networking sites, why not just read the actual study that those temperatures come from and learn why for yourself? You might learn something.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1987/1987_Hansen_Lebedeff.pdf

If you cared to read the study, your questions would've been answered. I was merely commenting on your sources to make a joke in the sense that none of them are the actual study itself and simply skew the truth. If you are going to try and discredit the science behind the temperatures, why not go straight to the study itself and make your own conclusions instead of going to these blogs and getting your information there and taking their word for it?

They simply say, "Hey, why aren't they taking data from this weather station anymore? It is from a high altitude and the next nearest station is 1200km away?! They must be cherry-picking data! OMG!"

Reading the study will tell you why that is done. But, then again, the study is actual science and a blog/news website isn't. So I understand why you wouldn't want to read it.

I am just saying this because I am done trying to counter all these ridiculous blogs with stupid claims. I'll stick with reading the actual studies. The studies that the science is based on will stick around. Those blog sites and articles in media will be gone and buried with the rest of the internet trash.

That just tells me that you didn't read the study at all.

All I am saying is if you want to educate yourself on things, it is always best to read the actual studies and not the news articles about them, regardless of what standpoint they take. This goes for both sides of the argument.

That tells me you have not done any reading yourself.  Notice I did not say "all", as in none were explained.  Only that many were.  UHI accounts for some of the eliminations, but can hardly be blamed for eliminating all but one north of the 65th.  And most of the ones eliminated (as a percentage) were not being influenced by UHI.  Clearly you do not care to check their work and accept it as gospel.  So may I call your attention to these "facts":

"Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate."

the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s"

From the 2007 IPCC report based upon a paper that was not published until 2008 and contained the following: We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses."

Again the problem is non peer reviewed.  The source for this? The International Union for Conservation of Nature An advocacy group.

Need I go on?  These are from YOUR bible.  And just the start.  But wil lyou find this fraud on the IPCC site?  no, you find them from the same place I got my links from.  People doing the work the IPCC does not do.  Clearly you have 2 problems:

1.  You refuse to take your fingers out of your ears while yelling lalalalalala

2. You are gullible and believe anything they tell you to believe without question.

You are not going to find the rebuttal to Arnell on the Arnell site, nor are you going to find the problems with the IPCC report on the IPCC site. Nor are you going to find the faults with the GISS data on the GISS site. 

But keep looking, I am sure you can find a bunch more lies, frauds, and half baked cuckoo statements that you will believe as GOSPEL.

To Dr Guy.

Jeez, you refuse to read scientific studies don't you? I didn't claim that UHI is the reason why they took out some of the stations. Again, if you actually read the study, you'd understand why. But, go ahead and continue reading your blogs.

And why are you going on about IPCC? I never said anything about the IPCC. They've admitted their mistake. They've acknowledged it. They've also stated that you shouldn't discredit an entire report based on one misjudgement.

I didn't say that you are going to find the rebuttals to studies in those same studies. That would be rather silly in a way (although many times if a counter study was done prior to theirs, they will reference to it with evidence countering it). But, I did say that if you read the study, you'd be able to form your own opinions of them as opposed to taking the opinions of the articles you read alone. If you read the study, then when you read an article about that study, you can form your own opinion. I also didn't say that you should only read certain types of studies from only a select few sources. By all means, read studies from whatever source want. Atleast they'd have a credible scientific method applied to them. But, if all you read are blogs and news/media outlets, then your perspective on things will always be skewed. This is regardless of the viewpoint of that article. Read the scientific studies, not the articles about them. Or, if you read an article about a study, then hunt down that study to find out if they are actually right. You'd be surprised at the things you can learn.

PS. If you want me to explain it for you so that you don't have to read the study, then just say so. I will gladly do it. But, don't act like you did when it clearly shows that you didn't.

You apaprently have a reading comprehension problem as you continue to attribute statements to me that I did not make (as is clearly seen). and to dodge the main question - why has the number of reported stations decreased 5000 (circa 1990) to 1500 (today).  Now how is a 25 year old study going to answer that question?  How is it germaine?  Of course I was not referring to the one you linked to, but the CURRENT one.  Which would answer your questions if YOU READ IT.

Try this one first: http://crapstats.wordpress.com/2010/01/17/global-warming-dropping-the-stations/

Second, clearly you do not know what you are talking about when you state: But, go ahead and continue reading your blogs.

It is clear to anyone that can read that my sources include not only Ma and Pa Blogs, but:

1. Blogs by scientists peer reviewed in their fields that have a direct bearing on the issue (McIntyre, mcKitrick, Pielke, etc.)

2. News Articles Quoting Scientists that are world renowned in the field (Lindzen, Freeman, D'aleo, etc.)

3. Analysis of data supplied by scientists whose main job appears to be to suppress all but their own findings (Hansen - a devotee of Keith Farnish, Schmidt - A suppressor of dissent, Jones, a hider of declines, Pahcauri - an incompetant boob, mann - of Hockey Stick fame, Briffa - ditto - --- etc).  Any wonder you cant read any conflicting views?

Give me a break.  Until you quit misquoting me, and actually start using current data, dont bother pretending you are any more than a AGW religious zealot.

Wow, I missed some excellent pwning from one side, which was usually followed by insults from the other...guess which camp most of the insults came from?

I'm wondering what the criteria are for this one:

I assume it has something to do with which side you are on....