My guess is that this is framed as a "scientific" debate, rather than a political debate. Therefore the funding source doesn't matter?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

apache -- no insult intended buddy! I agree!

Just thought one pahahagraph was perfect, two was maybe straying into Rosie lalaland. But what do I know!

You'll laugh. You'll cry. You'll talk jive! Just check out my latest YouTube video Hillary Clinton Talks Jive

Thank you for replying Mr. Cook. If I get the opportunity, I want to sit down and thoroughly digest all of the info. But today is booked to the max. :(

I'm still a little baffled by their circular argument and I would like to intelligently convey my concerns. But it will take time (and if you believe my ex-wife, a miracle) to compose my thoughts.

The short version is this. I'm not comfortable with the concept that the "individual" readings can be incorrect (a fact which they acknowledge) but that the overall regional mean anomaly is to be taken as reliable. I am not comfortable with that. Yes, I know they say that they drop readings that are not within a certain range, but they don't say what that range is and they don't provide any additional detail on precisely how they determine which readings to drop.

I am an ex Instructor Pilot. That is the "IP" portion of my nickname. Most airfields are located outside of the main city. Most airfields are surrounded by beautiful green grass. And I can tell you from personal experience that there is a HUGE difference between the temperature on the grass and the temperature on the ramp (the airfield). A HUGE difference. The worst part of every flight was the time spent baking on the ramp while doing the pre-flight. It is hot, hot, hot standing on all of that concrete and asphalt. D@mn hot!

I only mention this because it is important to understand my "baggage" so to speak. It gives you an idea where I am coming from.

I would LOVE to see a map of all temperature stations for the State of New York. Transposed upon that map I would like to see all of the temperature stations who had one or more readings "dropped" within a 24 hour period. Perhaps a map where stations whose readings were not dropped were depicted in the color blue, and stations which had readings that were dropped were depicted in red.

If I could see such a map, that would go a LONG way to allieviating my concerns. Does such a map exist?

In layman's terms, they cooked the numbers (using a computer model) according to their receipe to come up a temperature that fits their taste.  Does that about summarize the process? 

It is no wonder they continue to claim this or that year is the hotest, there is essentially no data set they have that isn't massaged in some way to get a number.  Basically what we are saying here is that any temperature they give you is the result of a complex statistical formulation where they manipulate the formulas and data for the desired result.  That's not anyone's idea of relevance, at least not to normal people.

“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” – Marcus Aurelius

Thanks for the nice comment, John.

Now let's look at the studies you cited. First the NCDC study (now that I'm done laughing) only covers two years. The idea behind urban heat island is that as the city grows, so does the amount of heat. Two years? LOLOL That's just too funny.

Then in the parker study, they say there cant be an UHI because the temperatures were the same on windy days as calm days. Okay, so then look at it like this. If the temperature station is on 4th and Elm, then on a calm night you get the temperature from 4th and Elm. But on a windy night, you get the heat that is blown to the temperature station from 5th and Elm. Then consider a different time frame, instead of two years, let's look at thirty years. The buildings got bigger (more concrete more heat held), there are more car engines blowing hot exhaust and the outskirts of the city got wider.

Now let's look at your logic using the Satellites and balloons. Now you are comparing temperature from an entirely different area. The surface measure temps at the surface. The balloons and Satellites measure temps in the lower troposphere from 1 to 5 miles up and are more affected by ENSO as stated on Roy SPencer's MSU home page. You are also using a time frame that is from 1982 and 1958, since ENSO has been in a positive phase. Now move into the upper troposphere, the effect is the opposite and it is also contrary to greenhouse theory predictions. That alone should tell you that any rise in temperature in the lower troposphere is caused by water vapor (the most abundant greenhouse gas) because that is where water vapor is, unlike CO2 which is a well mixed greenhouse gas and is in simillar concentration in both the upper and lower troposphere. 

In the GISS temperature you do the same thing. You limit yourself to a time period starting in 1975. Go back to 1940 and you get an entirely different amount of heating per decade.

Then in your last paragraph you compare urban vs non urban temperatures. That's the point John, the rural stations that are being photographed are showing that instead of measuring temperatures in areas of trees and grass, they are still measuring areas of concrete, air conditioner exhausts and metal towers, not to mention the occasional trash incinerator and bbq. Of course there will be no  difference in temperature rise between the urban and rural areas. That's the whole point.

Don't worry John, after the temperature record is fixed, there still might be some global warming to complain about. But instead of .77 in the last 100 years, will it be .55? or .33?

In support of Kristen Byrnes article, I would proudly like to forward this great article, indicating 1998 was not the warmest year on record in the US:     (scroll down to Aug.9th)

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/

Also, in addition to that, I would like to forward a great site proving that over 75 percent of all glaciers are growing in recent years, along with other cold/snow news often widely ignored by the mainstream: 

http://iceagenow.com

Believe me, Global Warming is a Hoax !   No, it's likely the greatest fraud ever in American History......