They are correct higher altitudes and higher latitudes warm more, which is rather nice really, it means if we do get warming (AGW or otherwise) the hot places like the tropics wont get that much hotter, while the higher latitudes like northern Canada, Siberia, wil get quite a bit warmer, and I'm sure that the people who live there will not be complaining.

The higher altitudes and lattitudes are where we need cold temperatures to hold snow-pack and ice. If these areas warm up even a small amout we will have BIG problems.

Kano: "if we do get warming (AGW or otherwise) the hot places like the tropics wont get that much hotter"

Somehow, I rather doubt that if it warms at higher latitudes, that will in any way stop warming near the equator.

"while the higher latitudes like northern Canada, Siberia, wil get quite a bit warmer, and I'm sure that the people who live there will not be complaining. "

http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/...

Seems like the people who live there are complaining.

0-for-2 this time.

Does it really matter? We live on the ground, not at high altitudes.

< I mean ground based temperature stations that are in the mountains, or on a plateau.>

Thanks for the clarification. I thought it was a question about the tropospheric hot spot.

they only complain when it does not fit their mindset

http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2014/07/...

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2013/06/josep...

they only complain when it doesn't fit there mindset

Watts and D'Aleo complain about high latitude and high Altitude temperature data being omitted. Since high latitudes have higher warming, this could lower the apparent warming, if not spacially averaged correctly. How about high Altitude?