Global Warming: Faulty Temperature Readings

As you know, I am no mindless adherent to the flawed premise that industrialized man has caused the temperature of this planet to rise. Despite numerous and repeated claims that "the science is settled," the most recent evidence is showing exactly the opposite.

For example, let's look at the temperature readings. Surface temperatures are measured with a large number of "temperature stations," many of which have been in the same spot for quite a long time. A recent study, however, shows that much of that temperature data has been delivering faulty numbers.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7236011/UN-global-warming-data-skewed-by-heat-from-planes-and-buildings.html

The report co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate sceptic, shows photographs of weather stations near heat-generating equipment which could be distorting their readings.

Some are next to air-conditioning units or on waste-treatment plants, while one sits alongside a waste incinerator. A weather station at Rome airport was found to catch the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets.

Rising temperatures around the stations, which have been in use for 150 years, could also have been caused by urbanisation, the study claimed. One weather station at Manchester airport, which was built when the surrounding land was mainly fields, is now surrounded by heated buildings.

Yes, that is correct. Much of the "warming effect" these stations are measuring doesn't come from greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, it comes from the temperature stations being situated right next to a heat source.

Prof Christy has published research papers examining the effects of local factors on weather stations in California, Alabama and east Africa, which he believes drastically undermine the reliability of global temperature records.

“The story is the same for each one. The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the local weather stations, such as land development,” he said.

Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, also highlighted problems with the weather data used by the IPCC after being invited to review its last report in 2007.

“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.

As I've said before, the "science" behind global warming is FAR from being settled. In fact, with all of the recent revelations and scandals, I'd say that global warming theorists have a long way to go in order to show any proof AT ALL supporting their crackpot theory.