Yeah anytime science and politics meet truth is always the first thing to go. 

The thing that strikes me is how few stations constitute the data sources.  Just like that single Yamal tree.  Bizarre.

But, don't forget, the article wasn't published in a peer-reviewed climatology journal so will simply be dismissed, no matter the content.

Unfortunately, the majority of people naively believe that scientists are purely objective, and that they can't draw their own conclusions because they're "not scientists[and they] wouldn't know."  The ability to think for yourself is being lost, leaving people willing to believe anything someone says just because they went to school longer.

I don't know what to think about this.

On the one hand, the deniers/sceptics include so many loonies that the safe bet seems to be the other side.

But on the other hand, I do find the data massaged too much to fit a predetermined conclusion.

Perhaps the safe position is to say that it is getting warmer, that it might be caused by humans but could also be caused by lots of other factors, and that what we can do to change the climate won't be enough anyway.

What I believe is that when it comes to money people will do what it takes to get it. they will lie, they will steal, they will even kill. Climate Change, Global Warming is just another system of control and business.

Phil Jones... Anyone seen Phil Jones?  Looking for Phil Jones.  LINK

They are on both sides - but you hear about the stigmatism associated with the skeptics more because the MSM is in bed with the loonies on AGW.  Check out Science American.com for some very telling posts by those who are supposedly objective scientists and the rage they are expressing (and in some case threatening) against any heretic in the bunch.