Umm, that's the exact opposite
of the method they use to homogenize data. They homogenize the urban
stations to match the rural
stations, to better calculate the Urban Heat Index and make sure that increasing urban amplification does not bias those urban stations' trends one way or another. If you meant to say that the homogenization process affects the rural temperatures, sorry, there's nothing funny going on
. The methods to homogenize the data are sound
. There is no intentional hoodwinking going on here.
Yet another source that claims they've removed the bias, while failing to explain how removing a known positive bias from nearly the entire collection of stations, results in a higher end result.
According to AGW, the TLT measurements show higher warming than the direct surface measurements, because the opacity of the atmosphere to the 3% of the infrared spectrum CO2 has an effect on is a wee bit taller than the stations. Bunk theory or not, this principle is sound, a matter of simple physics. Warming caused by the air is naturally going to be warmer in the air. How much is arguable, which one should be higher is not.
Globally, the surface data shows around .16C per decade, this while the satellite records show between .13C and .14C in the TLT. Warmer? Digging up worldwide station data sets would be a great deal of effort though, a comparison against the USHCN measurements is easier.
Unaltered "good" stations in the US show .155C per decade, GISS and the TLT measurements both show .16C per decade over the US. Plausible numbers, surface stations reading within the margin of error for that necessarily lower reading against TLT measurements. After your wonderful climatologists get through "correcting" the surface stations, they show .3C per decade over the US. This is the warming trend you've bought, a bullshit number twice as high as the TLT measurements that must necessarily outpace the surface trend.
You can pretend I'm just a kook all you want, but this isn't the work of conspiracy theorists. We start with a number in line with the satellite measurements, courtesy of NASA, and end up with one twice as high, courtesy of the NCDC, and I'm supposed to be convinced because the models are right in line with the doctored data sets. Politics and science don't mix, you've been sold a bunch of bullshit by people with an economic agenda.
Maybe I'm wrong and they just forgot to convert to Celsius. Maybe they actually believe the temperature on Venus is because of CO2, and not because the planet has 93 times as much atmosphere. Maybe they shit perfumed gold bricks...