Let's do a simple analysis of this "news."
1) The report said, more sensors were reduced from colder regions thus contributing to an increase in global temperatures.
No mention of how many of these were in colder regions. Was it 51% from colder regions and 49% from warmer? Was it 99% and 1%... what was it? Logical fallacy, suppressed evidence?
2) Let's assume that 100% of the withdrawn sensors were in colder climates, what would that mean? We have to use our minds here for a moment. Let's say that the globe was divided into 200x200 mile land surface grids. In each 200x200 grid, let's say there were 4 sensors placed randomly. If one new and more accurate sensor was placed in the center of each 200x200 grid, and the 4 randomly placed sensors were junked (or "ignored"), what would be the overall change? In one grid, perhaps the temperature from that one sensor would be reporting a slightly higher temperature. But since the old sensors were placed randomly it could just as well be that the new sensor reports a slightly colder temperature reading. Then in the grids next to that grid, the same thing could happen, could be higher or lower readings. But, over a large swathe of area, say a few hundred grids, the aberrations should go away (miraculously). In any case, they ought to error in a "random" direction... not all grids erring in one direction. Just because the number of sensors was reduced, does not necessarily mean the accuracy of the data was reduced.. it could be quite the opposite.
I said to myself that I wasn't coming back to this thread... perhaps I should not have done so...
This is more CON-ARTIST tactics!!
Fallacy of, presenting SELECTIVE information. Where is the data? Seems a file could be easily posted on the internet that had longitude & latitude of each sensor before, and after. Where is that data? Can't be more than a few kB of data... can't take up too much disk space.. hmmm
I would not doubt that most of the sensors removed from use were in colder, harsher climates. Anything surviving a Siberian winter has to be quite robust!! I would not want to go service one
WBU ALUM, now you are believing Russians over Americans? haha
Oh yes, I forgot, they are fellow oil producers
who certainly do not want to be told they need to refrain from digging up those US dollars .... I know, genetic fallacy.
I know they really meant it.
they are but human, but those cases are few and far between... unlike other career fields.... and unlike previous occupants of the White House. 
