Well it looks like you couldn't resist anyway so welcome

Hmm, perhaps I should have been clearer.  The "it" is man made global warming, not the debate.  You are also making a lot of assumptions as to how I "see it in my head."  Besides, that is rather irrelevant. 

Spoken like a true demagogue.  Hey, you started it .

I'm aware that the effects of global warming will not be felt equally everywhere.  I put that article to spur discussion.  It is funny that you use the more powerful storms scenario since that is not supported by the facts... which brings us to our next section.

I have read the IPCC article.  I even read much of the summary of the IPCC report you linked to.  The question is whether or not they came to their conclusions in an unbiassed manner.  The "Landsea Affair" doesn't exist on Wiki so far as I can tell.  All I can find is this this and this.  Heck, the first one is where I got the link to Landsea's letter.  So go ahead and set me straight. 

It is rather amusing to see you jump on the "stupid" bandwaggon (not that you're stupid, just quick to call people stupid) and avoid discussing it whatsoever.  If true, it looks rather damning to me.  Having weather stations collect temperature while located on blacktop on buildings in major cities and near transformers is bound to inflate the numbers a bit don'cha think? 

I admit the jury's still out for me whether or not there is a big problem with man made global warming.  Part of the reason I started this thread is so that I can have, what seem like, valid concerns with the concensus to be answered and scrutinized.  Calling everyone who disagrees "stupid" is a rather... well... stupid tactic.  You only put people in the defensive and you look like a jerk .

Actually it is very much because of fuel prices, though other factors may contribute.  Ethanol production has quadrupled since just a few years ago and the land used to produce it is taking away from land which could be used to feed us and our "flocks".  Not only that, but it appears that Ethanol production has a net negative effect on carbon emissions. 

A stupid article

This info is from the journal Science, not some rag tag blog.  You need a subscription to read it but listen to the podcast from 8 Feb '08.  Science Podcast.  It's funny that Roadkill turned me on to it .  It's a direct result of the "panic" TC mentioned.  This just highlights the problems with having the government mandate "solutions" to global warming.  The cure may be worse than the disease. 

Well Landsea specialized in those storms and even though we all get the impression that they are affected by global warming, his beef was that the data didn't support that while it was being reported that it did.  So my statement may or may not be totally correct but I'm skeptical that frequency and intensity of storms will vary that much.  I think a more likely effect would be where the storms go via the jet stream, and other air currents. 

But the criticism coming from the side stating that it is too conservative [in it's estimates] is being critical of how outdated the report was and that it didn't factor in new data.  The Landsea issue directly points to specific bias in one of the lead authors of the report.  He went in with assumptions and didn't let go of them when the data showed otherwise.  The IPCC report is a colaboration of scientific and political entities.  Just as science shouldn't be affected by religion, it shouldn't be affected by politics either.  While we shouldn't throw out everything in the IPCC report as junk science, we shouldn't take it as gospel truth either.  I don't see a problem with having a skeptical eye on the matter.

Anthony Watts.  Well, yes he's only surveyed thermometers in the U.S. because he's just getting started and because he's not funded and he lives in the U.S.  We have the most of these though than any other country (at least per sq. mile) and if it happens here, it's probably happening elsewhere as well.  The point is that the methods are flawed, not that there aren't other ways of getting the data.  Satelites are able to get the most accurate readings but they haven't been around all century. 

Perhaps you are looking at a different graph than I am.

Here's the rating guide so you know what "CRN" means:

Climate Reference Network Rating Guide - adopted from NCDC Climate Reference Network Handbook, 2002, specifications for siting (section 2.2.1) of NOAA's new Climate Reference Network:

Class 1 - Flat and horizontal ground surrounded by a clear surface with a slope below 1/3 (<19deg). Grass/low vegetation ground cover <10 centimeters high. Sensors located at least 100 meters from artificial heating or reflecting surfaces, such as buildings, concrete surfaces, and parking lots. Far from large bodies of water, except if it is representative of the area, and then located at least 100 meters away. No shading when the sun elevation >3 degrees.

Class 2 - Same as Class 1 with the following differences. Surrounding Vegetation <25 centimeters. No artificial heating sources within 30m. No shading for a sun elevation >5deg.

Class 3 (error 1C) - Same as Class 2, except no artificial heating sources within 10 meters.

Class 4 (error >= 2C) - Artificial heating sources <10 meters.

Class 5 (error >= 5C) - Temperature sensor located next to/above an artificial heating source, such a building, roof top, parking lot, or concrete surface."

Looks more like 70% are a Class 4 or 5.  Besides, half is a pretty big number.

I don't doubt Gavin Schmidt said it, as it would be in line with his view on Global Warming but do you have a link as to where he said it? 

Well, if I had all day to do so, perhaps I could but I gotta earn a living you know .

Hmm, if we keep on talking about the IPCC report it would .  Then again, I don't really see the science side of it as political, though there are definately political aspects to it.  If a mod wants to move it, feel free.