As I said, read Watts et al.

Note that even in his appearance on Maddow (the be-all and end-all of credibility?  lol) the Berkely guy (whose paper has yet to pass peeer review) did NOT mention station integrity.

That is the crux of the Surface Stations project, and what the new French standards and Watts et al blows out of the water for the warmists:  stations listed as “rural” (because that’s what they WERE in 1920) not only have not had their classification (and thus their data integrity) examined or adjusted, they have had their temperature data ADJUSTED UPWARD in modelling to date, in spite of urbanization contributing massive UHI effect to the readings.

Even stations that are still legitimately classified rural had their data ADJUSTED UPWARD.

There is no hockey stick.  The actual data shows…a stick.

Read Watts.

Barbara & Redcow:
Weather and climate are related but they are not the same things. Each describes environmental conditions, but on different scales of time and space. Meteorologists describe the state of the atmosphere at a particular time and place — weather — by measuring its temperature, air pressure, moisture, wind speed and direction, etc. But because the atmosphere behaves like a fluid, these conditions are prone to rapid change. Thus, weather at any one location is inherently difficult to predict more than, say, a week in advance.

Climatologists, on the other hand, don’t try to predict weather at one location on such a short timescale. Rather, they look at the bigger picture. Climatologists consider the much larger context in which weather operates and describe the expected frequency and duration of environmental conditions.

Climatologists aren’t as concerned with what the weather was like last week, as they are in determining the likely range and average of winter weather patterns over the last seasons, decades, centuries, or even longer. More importantly, climatologists want to know why those were the long-term prevailing conditions. Specifically, they want to observe and measure the large-scale, slower-moving environmental forces that drive the state of the atmosphere. So they observe and measure those variables that comprise the climate system in which short-term and smaller-scale weather patterns and climate oscillations operate.

To understand climate and detect climate change we need to collect data for a long time — the longer the data record the better — to determine whether and how global climate is changing. Predicting any single weather event is inherently difficult and we don’t base our assessments of climate on any single weather event.

As for “snowmaggedons:”
As the climate warms, evaporation of moisture from the oceans increases, resulting in more water vapor in the air.
There are two requirements for a record snowstorm:
1) A near-record amount of moisture in the air (or a very slow-moving storm).
2) Temperatures cold enough for snow.
It’s not hard at all to get temperatures cold enough for snow in a world experiencing global warming.

There will still be colder-than-average winters in a world that is experiencing warming, with plenty of opportunities for snow.
The more difficult ingredient for producing a record snowstorm is the requirement of near-record levels of moisture. Global warming theory predicts that global precipitation will increase, and that heavy precipitation events—the ones most likely to cause flash flooding—will also increase.

@Tom Seemen - I went to their website yo posted.  Enviornment Virginia urges us to wean our dependence on oil - I agree.  They offer tips to increase gas mileage - I agree. They are for electric-powered cars - again, I agree.  What is so radical about this ?  Please explain.

Loud mouths aside, who has more to lose in this debate:  the energy companies or the scientists ?  It’s pretty easy to figure out who’s in denial of Gloabal Warming.

I think some of the commenters on here need to return to science class or take a research methods class.  The skeptics in the scientific community are falling in numbers quickly and the summer/winter argument doesn’t hold water.

“Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”. . . . .Richard Muller (Koch brother front man who used to say warming was a hoax.  Seems he had a change of heart last week.)

Silly Redcow!  Because, when it’s summertime and it’s HOT, weather IS climate.

(In the winter, when it’s cold, weather is NOT climate.  Except in the 1970s.)

What a bunch of Horse !@#$%^.  Planetary wide changes to the earth’s temperature does not effect the micro climate on the scale of a single county in America. Why do all the Global Warming Drum beats sound between June - August when its hot outside? Where are they when there is a SnowPocalypse outside in February?

Here is an article I wrote awhile back. My main question is that if global warming is mad made then why are Mars and Venus warming up at the same rate as earth?

http://crumpy.com/?p=218

Good grief.  A radical organization with an agenda puts out a press release and the LTM presents it as fact straight-up?  Is this an editorial or a news article? 

And if anyone doubts just what this “Environment Virginia” group is all about, just take a look at this section of their website:
http://www.environmentvirginia.org/programs/vae/get-virginia-oil

So, I’m guessing they didn’t read the new paper from Watts et al, whose Surface Stations Project, using the French standards approved by the World Meterological group, has shown that the station data used uniformly in the various climate models of NOAA, HADCRUT, IPCC etc have adjusted all temp data up by a margin of from 100% to 300% beyond the actual temp measurements?

IOW, that global warming/climate change/climate disruption/_______________ is TRULY man made, in the lab?