Just a few comments:
- Incredibly, the story makes no mention at all of satellite temperature measurements.
I completely agree with Climate Skeptic here:It is just another reason why the surface temperature measurement system is crap, and we should be depending on satellites instead. Can anyone come up with one single answer as to why climate scientists eschew satellite measurements for surface temperatures EXCEPT that the satellites don't give the dramatic answer they want to hear? Does anyone for one second imagine that any climate scientist would spend 5 seconds defending the surface temperature measurement system over satellites if satellites gave higher temperature readings?
More on the non-alarming temperatures measured by satellites is here, here and here.
One can only assume that it there is much less justification for adding "corrections" to satellite data; and, as we have seen before, the only way that you can get a warming trend is to add said "corrections".
In other words, the entirety of the warming that we are seeing from the US surface stations is effectively made up by the scientists.
Without their positive bias, the raw data shows no significant warming trend at all. Further, if we accept that many of the measuring stations are now in "warmer areas"—i.e. they are now near roads, or heat exchangers, or are in any other way affected by the warmer air of a city or town when twenty years ago they were not—surely any bias applied should be a negative one.
In other words, in terms of the raw data, there is no real warming. If we were to apply a sensible negative bias, the US data would actually show a cooling trend.
Which is, of course, more than a little inconvenient for the anthropogenic climate change alarmists. In fact, it probably alarms them somewhat...