Hagiograph has asked some interesting questions that I will try to answer. He says in a comment in the Mosy across Missouri post that because the temperature data is so bad that it is good that scientists have other means of measuring temperature. In reality they don't have too many other methodologies. Let's compare the satellite data from the University of Alabama, Huntsville with the temperature data.
The red dots are the yearly temperature anomaly. One can see it going up and down pretty much in sync with the satellite data, but it doesn't go down in 2008 and 2008 was a very cold year. I would point out that the thermometer data, the red dots are going up at .016 deg F per year (the regression slope) but the satellite data is only going up at the rate of .004 deg F per year. It seems that the land thermometers are being biased. We will see more of that below.
At this site one can find the weekly temperature anomaly for subdivisions of the US. In 2008, this is what the histogram of the US looked like
You can see that this is weighted towards the cooler temperatures, yet they say that 2008 was warm. It wasn't. There were multi-decadal temperature records broken all over the world in 2008. Do a google on it.
This same NOAA site allows one to get the temperature trend for central Greenland by making a map and then clicking on one of the dots. This is what I get for the temperature trend in central Greenland for 2003 to 2007.
I would like to ask anyone who actually believes in global warming how Greenland is going to melt when the temperature is getting colder? Today I read a Scientific American article where the author thinks that Greenland is going to melt in a few years. How can it do that if it is getting cooler?
Another means of looking at the temperature is via Global Climate at a Glance. It shows that the oceans have been cooling but the land warming since 2003. If there is a single cause of warming, CO2, then the oceans should be warming along with the land, but it isn't.
Note that the oceans are cooling since 2003 and the land warming, and that most of the warming is in northern Russia. I find this strange since the download of the data for Russia doesn't show the warming. I have lots of them fromthis Dutch site The Siberian temperatures all look like this, which show no warming.
Where in the world is that warming they are talking about. What a scam!
The dear reader should ask himself this: if CO2 is the main driver of climate, why does the temperature record at Amundsen-Scott station at the South Pole not show any warming given that the CO2 content of the atmosphere has risen by nearly a third since the 1950s.
Amundsen-Scott seems to be cooling slightly in a world of increasing CO2 and hysteria over the melting of the Antarctic ice.
One final picture to show the relative amount of carbon 14 as one goes deeper into the ocean. At 1000 feet in the North Pacific, the content of carbon 14 is about 60% depleted, meaning that water is over 5700 years old, and probably closer to something like 9000 years old.
In short, the data doesn't support the views of the Holocene deniers. There is nothing to fear.