I'm done with this thread.. 

After reading all of this all I can conclude is maybe we do need some sort of mega-disaster to wipe humans off the Earth so an "Intelligant" species can replace us!!!   Maybe cockroaches... yeah, cockroaches.  Because honestly, I think a cockroach is more intelligant than some of the things I just read.

So long, I'm off to go wait for the Star Trek mod to get finished...  I'm done arguing with idiots.

Fair winds & following seas, Jim.

A little reading to quench the radicals:

http://www.amazon.com/Denialism-Irrational-Thinking-Scientific-Threatens/dp/1594202303

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

We buy one = proof positive.

Hippity Hoopla Poopda! Bunch of wanna-be scientists trying to argue science they dont truely understand.

This is like watching a christian and muslim that never memorized their holy books trying to argue with each other over which book is more true.

Interesting thread, for those not already exhausted.

Save for Drudge, our western press is conspicuously ignoring this, & minimizing it when it does take notice.

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

This response is further demonstration.  I said responding to you is worse than arguing with the idiots that wont accept the surface station data being wrong.  You then assumed, for some incomprehensible reason, that I think you said something regarding it.  I guess this is a step up though, attacking me for being in denial of the threat of earthquakes in California was a lot more idiotic.

When you learn to read, return and pick apart my posts again.  If all of your posts were denoted by a smiley face or something indicating morbid sarcasm or pretend stupidity, it would make sense.  Taking them seriously just isn't working.

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

Pachaurigate gets better/worse every day.

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

And better/worse still.

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

Hmm, did we get up on the wrong side of the bed?  WHile I freely admit 2 of my links were to blog sites, 2 were to reputable (albeit non-US) publications that took the "official" government sites to task for:

1. Not conforming to their own standards (publishing non-peer reviewed papers)

2. Eliminating data with no explanation

3. Modifying data on a traveling scale to produce a desired end result instead of actually letting the data do the talking

4. Using non-scientific methods to force a conclusion.

Since we know GISS is guilty of some of these (since the raw data is available to those who spend the time analyzing it), how are we to learn the truth by ONLY visiting the GISS site?  The answer - you cant unless you take the raw data from the site and do your own analysis - which the linked blogs did.  So perhaps you want to critique the blogs for their analysis?

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.

I thought that was interesting.  Seems scientific to me.

I also didn't find anything in there that would explain why using extrapolations from a limited number of stations in certain areas would be better than using actual data from a larger number of actual stations.

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.

Pages 4 and 6 go into that a little bit to explain why. Page 3 goes into why they chose the 1200km limit. Page 25 and 26 is a good conclusion of the meteorological station records analysis.

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.

It's funny, I'd swear this is what everyone but you has already done...

The "good" stations have a set of requirements, these requirements to be good stations make it impossible for them to report low.  Why then, are so many of them corrected upwards by substantially more than the margin of error for the station quality?  After you learn to read, you should start thinking about this.

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.

You really need to go back and start reading my posts and what they were in direct reply to. My replies (in which I posted that study) were in response to your GIStemp accusations regarding the legitimacy of their global temperature averages because they are "filtering" out stations from colder regions. In your post (#1087), you cite 4 articles, 3 of which were in regards to GISTemp's studies.

If you had done any of the reading I had posted, then you'd know that even though the study I posted was from 1987, it's methodology (that is explained in the study you didn't read) is still used for all of their reports. Your claim that it isn't the "current one" further highlights your lack of knowledge on the subject.

Again, as I stated, the reason for the number of station drop-offs is stated in the study. If you don't care to read it, fine. That's your problem. But, I am telling you that if you read it, you would understand why your cited websites are wrong. On the GISS website, they explain what methods they use in full detail (they have 2 method's, the one I linked to and another in 1999 which explains the further drop-off of station use through the 1990's): http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

You're misquoting yourself even. You are claiming you weren't refering to a particular study (that I linked to) when you linked to 3 articles that are refering to the methodologies used in that exact study that I linked to. That doesn't make sense at all...

And now you are going on and on about the credibility of your sources after I just debunked 3 of yours. I am sure you have credible sources. I am not countering ALL of your sources. My posts refer to the sources you linked to in reply #1087. If you want to link directly to some studies that you'd like me to read, by all means do so. But my responses were in direct reply to the 3 crap articles you posted above regarding "dropping meteorological stations from the dataset" conspiracy theory that you seem to have.

If you read the study you'd understand why even if you added in 10000 meteorological stations in the Arctic circle it won't skew the global temperature average to colder temperatures. Conversely, you could at in 10000 meteorological weather stations in sunny Florida and it will not skew the global temperature average to warmer temperatures either. Read the study and stop making stupid claims that they are filtering out weather stations in the arctic to skew the temperatures to the high side of things.

I linked to the study that reveals their methodologies that they currently use. If you don't want to read it, then I am not going to argue any longer with you. But, by all means, continue to post all sort of articles like the 3 (in reply #1087) you posted. It really shows how ignorant you are to the people who did read the study.

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....

This isn't the issue to my way of thinking.  It's not whether intentional 'skewing' is taking place, but why raw data sources would be excluded at all.  How does that enhance the validity/reliability of the data?  If it's simply a convenience so they don't have to crunch so many numbers, I'd say that makes the data rather less 'robust', to use one of their fave terms.  He explains the methodology, but doesn't really provide a scientific justification for using it.

Further, there are a lot of admitted assumptions in the methodology, something which seems 'non-rigorous'(?) to me.