climate change

Oh Zany, I wish you had watched a 1960's series called "The Interlocutor", hosted by a brilliant young Michael Mansfield QC. Each week he had a group of politicians, scientists, civil servants church people among many other people of varied backgrounds, if I remember correctly, a panel of somewhere between 12 and 20 people. He would put a proposition for them to discuss and answer questions. One question was similar to yours and the responses, particularly from politicians and civil service were quite frightening, particularly what should have been their responses to the public.

You can try to find copy of the episodes but I got zilch response from the BBC and ditto from Michael Mansfield. I suspect the footage was destroyed as showing up the experts who took part and the damaging effect on public perception, especially as Mansfield's proposition was a trap they all fell for.

I spend a fair amount of time reading up on various claims. I don't think its unreasonable to ask you to back up the claims cut and paste from WUWT.
If your only source is one with various warnings about its unreliability then I'm not going to believe you. 

You haven't even researched to see whether 89 stations being inaccurate is a lot or a little. Nor looked at comparable readings from other sources, nor whether stations not next to urban areas are also recording temperature rises. 

What do you mean by 'back up'? The cut and paste you mention is that WUWT is like many blog areas a location whereby much information is collated especially information that the official channels would prefer not to be available. There are numerous warnings about the reliability of  the IPCC assessments, from many many scientists, yet you seem to accept the IPCC as beyond reproach.

I referred to 128 stations, I referred to 96% being well outwith the NOAA specifications, the report has contained within it photographic evidence of  car park located weather stations, stations by rock piles, stations by air conditioning units, by buildings, by generators, by glasshouses, stations falling apart and by roads and runways. I cannot make you look, all I can do is draw conclusions from your unwillingness to look and your dogmatic stance that the IPCC world of science is right and everyone else is not just wrong but evil in their intent. It is not evil to point out that a sample of the official stations are not operating as they should and the error they are recording, which may or may not be corrected downwards, is giving a false high. If it is corrected downwards then again that is a an uncertainty in the values.

I can't explain any clearer. 
Perhaps by example. 
If I claim 10,000 ford cars were found to have inaccurate odometers that can sound like a serious issue, until I know how many Ford cars there are altogether. 
If its 20,000 its serious at 50%, but if its 300 million then its insignificant at 0.003%
Which is why I asked you to look into how many reading stations, satellites etc there were in comparison to the 120 erroneous ones. 

Incidentally that is why I found WUWT duplicitous in the first place. Lies damned lies and STATISTICS. 

Again, none of this matters in comparison to the actual science.  I'm also in favour of listening to Sandypine, because he's making the effort which the decent folk on here will appreciate.  He's looking at data and how that data is acquired and managed.  I honestly do not think we require an authority or the Chinese government to tell us what's what.  You just require an understanding of science to see if it's true or false, or more fuzzy where any calculated figures or predictions could be under or over exaggerated, which has clearly been the case a number of times.

It was a sample, a bit like polling, you take a measure of a representative number and apply the figures with levels of uncertainty. I do not apply that to the WUWT values becasue, having been a sampler, I am well aware that if you apply any selection to a sample it raises issues. The sample for the second report was skewed to the stations that had failed in the first report, however with a space of about a dozen years one would think that re-siting  and/or some form of correction undertaken. Apparently not. The remainder of the stations assessed were random throughout the nation. So I cannot statistically infer that 96% fail I can however infer a serious problem with the stations nationwide.The same applies here if we take just the stations that the last ten official highest UK temps have been recorded there are serious issues in terms of their accuracy as an uncorrupted temperature reading.

The same applies to your ten thousand ford cars. If the ten thousand were a random sample there is a serious problem irrespective of their proportion to all ford cars. If the ten thousand were partly selected as ones that had been wrong in the first place from a random sample there is still a potential massive problem. Ignoring it is not an option but seems to be your preferred MO.  

Realistically it is for the IPCC to prove their assessments are free from potential flaws, that is not done by calling those who question the values names and lies damn lies and statistics applies to their work as well as has been shown many times in the past.

EDIT as regards satellite confirmation it was not the case initially until correction factors were applied, the new infrared readings are lauded as showing a match with the surface temps although I would hasten to add the report is at best difficult to follow and it is unclear what the match is.

Of course it possible for any group to involve itself in nefarious actions to further their agenda. The difference is that the IPCC are making claims and seeking action from the planet's population. WUWT do not have that agenda, they may be seeking to discredit said IPCC agenda but then surely the IPCC case must be watertight against such actions, not be made immune from such actions by labelling it misinformation.