There was a study done in California that segregated long serving weather stations by current population of the city they are in. The larger center stations had relatively large temperature increases over the past 50 years, while the smallest centers had effectively none. If asked, I will try to find a link.

I'm asking. I wonder how much more of this stuff it will take to beat back the *ahem-hem* "climate change" gestapo.

according to Mcintyres site it's screwedup in southAmerica too. I think the climate-gestapo is goosestepping to many billions$ and can only be minimized.

Serious question may warrant me a ridiculous mark, but -- Can we construct the record from just the stations that qualify as 1 or 2? If not, why not?

It's obvious that the whole AGW hoax is based on shaky ground, with ridiculously lousy data. GIGO is what their models are ... And we are going to spend trillions based on this ___ ?

Louise

I'm looking, but have no clue where to find it. I stumbled across it a while ago when looking into the man-made-global-climate-change bunkum, but did not keep track of it.

Watts (and McIntyre) are well on their way to shattering the AGW myth. Will they be eligible for a Nobel prize. Will Gore have to give his back?

Kate, please have some consideration for Dr. Suzuki's feelings. As Bob Rae would say: "this is very mean spirited".

wow , data scatter with yearly standard deviation more than 5 times the differential of over 100 years.

a regression on this would be considered somewhere between meaningless and BS.

bill-tb: "Can we construct the record from just the stations that qualify as 1 or 2?

Yes, it can be done and it has been done. Check out John V's work over on climate audit. However the answer that there is little difference.

Regards,
John

It's obvious just from looking at the sea of red-hot dots that America is heating up. Action is required NOW! Getting hot... Can't breathe...

John,

"Yes, it can be done and it has been done. Check out John V's work over on climate audit. However the answer that there is little difference."

Pay attention to the number of posts on the subject at climate audit, and the amount adjustments done on the data by Hansen et al.....

Any wonder it makes no difference?

Join the dots and it*s obvious. A small dead rabbit, head to the left and legs on the right. = TG

John Cross said: "However the answer that there is little difference."

Can you say -data massage- John? If you can't take away from that map a message of deliberate scientific malfeasance, then I have to assume the is no evidence at all that you would find acceptable.

They are lying John. On purpose. Will you help them lie?

Quite frankly, some of these AGW "scientists" should be jailed for fraud. Data manipulation and deletion is fraud, pure and simple.

Serious question may warrant me a ridiculous mark, but -- Can we construct the record from just the stations that qualify as 1 or 2? If not, why not?

Posted by: bill-tb at February 28, 2008 9:36 PM

actually bill, I would question the results if ALL the stations quallified, the problem is (even if all stations qualified) that the distribution for monitering should be as equally spaced around the world as possible, and in far greater numbers than currently used, heat and cold(lack of heat) know no bounderies. Also you would need near simultanious readings at a rate of about once per hour, and this should be done at various elevations, thus keeping track of air(tempurature) movements.

Actually GYM it should be done by a dedicated flock of purpose built satellites that check each other's readings and update continuously. Then you check the network against a few ground stations that are carefully documented and monitored by a staff. An on-site staff.

That's if you give half a damn about accurate readings. Funny how they don't do it that way, eh?

Beware of the eco-nazis under the green swatika