even if all further sites surveyed turn out to be proper, the numbers of sites outside of parameters seems enough to overwhelm the signal purported to be selected out of it.
Or maybe not.
To make it scientific, they are going to have to work a bit harder than taking pictures and finding data problems at a few stations.
The bottom line is that this may cause the USHCN principals to examine their methods and data; and the ultimate bottom line will turn out to be the current scientific understanding of the issue -- the world is warming and the scientists know why.
Or why else is spring earlier and winter later?
Early Warning Signs: Spring Comes Earlier
Arctic spring arriving weeks earlier
I’ll read through the Surfacestations link more thoroughly later (heading out), but the first scan suggests the guy who wrote it is doing the hyperbole thing himself, discounts that we still don’t know whether the GISS adjustments are appropriate since they are functionally secret, and appears to have used the quasi-averaged adjusted data that is being disputed to show that the two sites are more alike than the raw data shows.
The bottom line is that this may cause the USHCN principals to examine their methods and data; and the ultimate bottom line will turn out to be the current scientific understanding of the issue -- the world is warming and the scientists know why.
Please try to re-read what you wrote as an impartial scientist.
1) It is the responsibility of the scientists to defend their data, not for the critics to defend their findings of incorrectly collected data. If data was collected from a stations that did not meet a simple set of standards, then, if these scientists wish to maintain their credibility, it is THEIR responsibility to demonstrate how the bad data affects their previous conclusions. Apparently they have refused to show how they have corrected their predictions for the bad data, and there is evidence that suggests that they are correcting good data to offset the bad data. This is bad science. In my line of work (nuclear power), it would get me thrown in jail.
2) Your second paragraph indicates that you "know" the conclusion without any knowledge of the depth of the problems with the methods and data collection errors. This too is bad science. Some would even call your position "faith"