This is monumental news, or so would you think. I find it hard to believe that this has not been aired on any of the main news channels in the UK, which I follow closely. It was exactly the same in December with East Anglia, next to coverage in the media.

It is incredibly annoying that the powers that be continue to run wild, with their own set of rules doing as they please along the way. While we have to simply put up with it, most of the time oblivious to it due to the lack of mainstream coverage.

It is only by finding sites such as this that you can begin to start putting the pieces of the jigsaw together. Keep it up SOTT, you are doing a fantastic job bringing these subjects to the fore!

Perhaps we can blame it on psychopathic tendencies of genetic addiction, but in the end it doesn't matter how, but why and how it affects all of the rest of us.

There's a difference between removing stations in the climatological record over time and using a different set of stations in the baseline, but keeping the same set of stations in the climatology. Let's say there were 6000 stations in the 1950-1980 mean. As long as the number of stations used in the annual climatology time series remains constant, there's nothing "wrong" with using a baseline that used more stations. Yes, it will show a warmer global average difference if, on average, more stations were eliminated from higher elevations and latitudes, but the year-on-year change in temperature is really what you want to look at.
It's when you're comparing this data set with others stretching further back in time that you need to do a calibration. So, for example, if you have tree ring data going back another 200 years you take the 1950-1980 average tree ring temperature and calibrate it with the station data. Then you adjust all the time series tree ring data by this calibration offset, thus eliminating any perceived warming by the station data.