findings of those with specialty in the field.  Also, I searched for posts by you with the word "climate" and didn't find any references in two whole pages of posts.  Being an engineering doesn't give you the credentials to make authoritative statements without backing.  Science works based on evidence, so unless you can link me to some other post of yours with some references, 2b stands.

If you don't mind answering (I understand if you don't), could you be more specific about which company or area you work in?  If you work for big oil or coal, with all due respect I find your opinion even less trustworthy.  Such companies are dumping huge amounts of money into the denial movement.  Climate change skeptics cry foul play over funding, when they have consistently been shown to be the worst offenders.
http://drexel.edu/now/news-media/releases/archive/2013/December/Climate-Change/

That is quite the wild goose chase you have laid out for me.  Before embarking on such an adventure, I think we should hammer down what exactly your point is.  You claim that recent warming trends can be explained faulty calibration of instruments and error propagation?  You do realize that this would require an overwhelming majority of the instruments to be off in the same direction?  Do you realize how many different ways they measure temperatures?  You claim that the vast majority of those are flawed, and flawed in a uniform direction instead of being random?  Otherwise any faulty calibration simply leads to a little more noise in the individual measurements, but the more measurements you have, the more that noise averages out.  Good thing we have lots and lots and lots of measurements. 

If you are that interested in hysteresis curves, I recommend you contact the authors of whatever study you doubt and inquire further about their methods.  Calibration details are not the focus of their papers, though they may be willing to share some supplementary materials.

With regards to the asphalt effect, NASA briefly describes how they correct for it in their GISS measurements here:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
Here is one reference specific to urban effects:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3730.1
I haven't read this one yet, but found it in a quick google search and it looked relevant:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.859/full
I have read other studies that examine urban heating and find the same warming trends in both rural and urban areas.  I don't really have the motivation to look them back up for you, but they are out there if you want to find them. 

How likely do you find it that 173 different measurement techniques all show the same calibration bias?  Because this paper (http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/pip/2012GL054271.shtml) used that many proxies and compared their measurements to the instrument record and found very good correlation between the two, suggesting that the measurements are quite accurate:




"(heck your graph above showed that some scientists INDEED still believe in a global cooling, are there models worse than the "warmists"?) "

You might want to reexamine the graph.  It was cumulative papers versus time, ending in 1979.  The very select few scientists who published a few papers on it quickly abandoned that idea, as the evidence for warming started piling. 

You state your beliefs that foul play is occurring in climate science.  Prove it.  Considering that the scientific consensus is international and transcends American politics, that is quite a claim.  Surely such a conspiracy would be easy to reveal?  We all share the same climate.  If they truly are fudging the numbers, why haven't people been coming out with studies and evidence against them?

My BS-meter goes off every time I read one of these "peer reviewed" climatologist papers (and the science IS biased).

Again, you are going to have to prove it.  You can't just tell me to use the search feature, becuase you just made the same claims there without proof.  As accurate as your BS meter might be at some things, when it comes to science peer reviewed evidence is king.  I have supplied copious amounts.  Your turn.

On a side note, while skimming through some of your previous posts, I read that you have extensive experience in fluid dynamics.  While it is just as difficult to model internal variablity of the climate as it is fluid dynamics, the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is not dependant upon these models.  It all boils down to simle thermodynamics, heat in minus heat out.  The heat flux of the earth is quite positive and has been linked to human CO2 emissions.  Imperfections in models only effect the fine details of projections based on the ever improving models.