The problem is whether man is contributing to this ongoing climate change. In particular, the question is whether anthropogenic global warming is a reality. But the only possible mechanism for AGW is because of the contribution to CO2 related to man’s activities. But, as it turns out, CO2 is a trace gas, currently less than 4/100 of one percent by volume of the atmosphere, and there is no evidence (none, zero, nada), either historic or current, that CO2 is a driver of temperature. In fact, the only established relationship between CO2 and temperature is that CO2 is released by the oceans hundreds of years after a temperature increase. (Sorry about that algore!)

There is another issue related to temperature. Even a casual look at the process involved in obtaining land surface temperatures, namely the follow-up machinations related to such things as changes in site locations, instrumentation upgrades, local environment influences, missing data, adjustments to time of day, averaging mins and maxes, estimating and eliminating heat sink influence, and extrapolating local information to massive areas where no readings are available could easily overwhelm any possibility of accurate results. The only reason for this not happening would be that there are so many different and large errors introduced that there is a good chance some will offset others. Finally, this eggregious problem which cannot be dealt with by even very honest and conscientious workerfs, is then subject to various bogus machinations by the CRUs. It’s hard to make up stuff that is this bizarre!

However, the cause for the alledged drop in stations is not a conscious weeding out by IPCC conspirators as d’Aloe so bluntly states. What happened is that since 1990 the difference between ‘modern’ stations with on-line access and ‘old-fashioned’ stations that rely on paper, has shifted.
The ‘old-fashioned’ stations still rely their data, but it must be processed by hand, and it can take years before they finally are integrated.

d’Aloe knows this, as he has admitted on his blog. He has consciously choosen to present this as a conspiracy and disappearing of stations. Does this make him a liar? I am afraid so.

Seriously John..you have far too much time on your hands.

Our site is growing quickly and covers a broad spectrum from diehard climate followers to newbies looking for reliable climate info. We want to give both a ready primer to the issue as well as a regularly updated page for well-informed readers. In this regard I would be most grateful if you would, when not inundated, point me, a jobbing writer with far, far more legal than science expertise, in the right direction.

I’ve just posted a response on TWAWKI regarding those global dropped sites that aren’t included in Anthony Watt’s United States study and as you highlight, the issues are far graver globally where reliable info is scant. I’m hesitant to give further advice until I’ve discussed this with you.

Therefore, I’d be most grateful if you could advise me where to focus my efforts so I can help support your work to the best of my ability. I’d also like to write further articles on our site as we follow your investigations.

Many thanks and keep up the great work.
John

If the cold brings clouds, rain and snow it will mean less sun light, and more crop damage. Perhaps others will know more than I.