Verified answer

I suspect this is true, because the urban heat island effect (which is filtered out of the raw data) would show greater warming if unaccounted for. I don't think it's a particularly relevant question - except to debunk the denier claim that the data is fudged to show more warming - because raw data is much less useful than adjusted data which filter out factors like UHI.

*edit* "ACTUALLY the earth is cooling over the last ten years. Especially the Arctic"

Whoa! Deniers tell some whoppers, but that's one of the biggest I've seen in a long time. The region of the planet which is warming the most rapidly is the part that's cooling the most?!

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap....

I frequently wonder why people who haven't done even the slightist bit of research on the subject answer questions in this section. The only purpose it serves is to misinform people and make yourself look foolish. If you don't know what you're talking about, then keep your mouth shut.

Wow Ben, I checked like three of your links not one had any link to the raw data or how they got the data. This proves the point that you can find the information in finished form easily but in some of the cases all you get is a chart with no information to how it was created. Until you have a link to the actual raw data, you don't proof a thing.

It all depends on where you put the thermometers:

Near the pavement in cities - Very hot

Near bodies of water such as lakes - very cool

in the ocean near an underwater volcano - very hot

in the ocean near an ice shelf - very cold

etc...etc...

At my house, if I put a thermometer in the shade in the front (West) and another in the shade in the back, there is usually about 5-degrees difference. I have even tried moving the same thermometer from front to back, because some of them will read differently. This is why I believe that AGW science is flawed. They can use any readings that they want to prove their point and eliminate the readings that they don't like

ACTUALLY the earth is cooling over the last ten years. Especially the Arctic. Since the undersea volcano that erupted in 1999 in the Greenland- Siberia rift. Bigger than Mt St Helens eruption. It is now cooling and the Arctic ice is reforming. The ice road in the Yukon had more truck loads hauled on it than ever before. The IPPC corrupt 'panel' has 'lost' its data on temp and CO2. It is easier to 'lose' the data than to be found to be lying.

"Has any skeptic taken the raw data and calculated the average global temperatures?"

This can't even be done. The concept of "the average global temperature" doesn't even make sense.

If you don't agree with this, then explain just what is the definition of "average global temperature".

Their numbers are prettymuch meaningless to me in regard to CO2 or AGW. I think they are suspect based on the recent fraud that was unearthed but it wouldn't change my mind one way or the other. I don't find the recent warming inconsistent with the past nor do I find it particularly alarming. I also don't find that it corresponds well to CO2 concentrations. For example it cooled in the mid 20th century in spite of increased CO2 concentrations.

I doubt it. Deniers aren't very scientific. Some of them don't even agree with me.

Before you get too excited, please check out:

surfacestations.org

wattsupwiththat.com