from Science News Daily:

MAY 2010 GLOBAL TEMPERATURE IS WARMEST ON RECORD; SPRING AND JANUARY-MAY ALSO POST RECORD BREAKING TEMPS
The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for May, March-May (Northern Hemisphere spring-Southern Hemisphere autumn), and the period January-May, 2010, according to NOAA. Worldwide average land surface temperature for May and March-May was the warmest on record while the global ocean surface temperatures for both May and March-May were second warmest on record, behind 1998.
-- full story > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100616134641.htm

Hay Karin, was that before or after the unexplained, or justified "corrections", of up to 2 degrees Hansen, & his mates always apply to get their warming results?

Way to go Hasbeen. Your response proves the main argument of this article. I don't expect entrenched deniers to say anything else.

Professor Phil Jones, the Head of the CRU at the University of East Anglia says that there has been no global warming for fifteen years. What does carbon dioxide do?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk:80/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

We are told that the IPCC is the repository of the worlds peer reviewed science. PROBLEM. A team of forty researchers across the globe have examined the ‘peer reviewed papers’ quoted by the IPCC AR4 Report and found that over 5,000 of their papers are not peer reviewed. Indeed a high proportion of those 5,000 papers are taken from conservation group media releases. Further, there is now a question, in light of the Climategate emails, as to how many of the ‘peer reviewed’ papers have had anonymous peer review? How many have been reviewed by friendly sources?
http://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/ and

http://www.noconsensus.org:80/ipcc-audit/findings-main-page.php

The whole issue of rising temperatures has been thrown into doubt by the work of D’Aleo and Watts. They have found that raw data has been manipulated by a process that ignores low temperature measuring stations in favour of stations in warmer places.

· Surface Temperature Records: Policy Driven Deception http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/surface_temp.pdf

Dr Joseph D’Aleo & Anthony Watts expose the manipulation of raw temperature information that makes it appear that the globe has warmed.

In the USA, Dr Edward Long has found that rural temperature stations measurements have been increased by a factor of five. Why would honest scientists need to do that?

· USA’s Contiguous Temperature Trends using NCDC raw & adjusted data.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/Rate_of_Temp_Change_Raw_and_Adjusted_NCDC_Data.pdf

Dr Edward R. Long writes ‘The raw data shows a systematic treatment that causes the rural adjusted sets of temperature rate of increase to be 5 fold more than that of the raw data’.

The only gw is the hot air coming from the despondent pseudo scientist who had lied and manipulated the figures in order to support their dogma. The truth will always win out in the long term. Don't forget the ice age predictions that were supported strongly by the pseudo scientist in the 1970's.

I learned a lot from the Anthony Watts lecture the other night. His photographic survey of 1221 US HCN weather stations illustrates how the 'high quality network' has fallen into neglect and thus provides direct photographic evidence of why the official temperature record is unreliable. About 90% of the stations don't meet US standards.

Temperature stations located next to air conditioning units, in the middle of asphalt paved carparks, a metre or so away from buildings and other heat sources, when the old rule was 100 metres clear of buildings. Temperature stations in the middle of urban high rise, no wonder there's been so much warming. Of course the scientists manipulate the figures to allow for urban influences, but then you would have to also make allowances for whether the scientist was a government funded alarmist or an independent largely unfunded realist.

It's funny how the scam started in 1970s after 35 years worth of cooling. Oh that's right, some of the same people were alarmed about an impending ice age back then. When they saw the cycle turn in the late 70s they backed the 'warming' horse. When the cycle turned to cooling again a decade ago 'global warming' suddenly became 'climate change'. If the planet was in danger you'd never find out about it from this lot because they're too busy cooking the books and managing the spin. When you you hammer them on the lack of evidence they turn to ocean acidification and so it goes on.