Data issued with the1991 CDIAC documentation. Stations were increased from 293 to 305 or 306.   List sorted for Population descending.
Urb refers to GHCN early 1990's station coding, U = Urban, pop 50,000 plus , S = Small town, 10,000 up to 49,999, R = Rural 9,999 and under.
Actual populations are generally way  out of date.  Could readers please send in any more up to date populations with a ref. Thanks.
40% of these stations are coded U.  So what now about the truthfullness of Jones et al claim on page 1216 of their SH paper as the clarify why only 3 stations were excluded for urban bias,  Sao Paulo, Madang and Whenuapai,  "... very few stations in our final data set come from large cities."  Could this lulling statement be a candidate for the most misleading statement in modern science ?   I am happy to publish defences of this statement..
Many lies have been told over 15 years by the great and the good in the media  as they parrot that, "... urban influences have been allowed for by Jones et al."
It is telling that when Wood 1988 raises this exact issue of the ridiculous low number of  stations  excluded for urban warming, Wigley & Jones puff back in their point 1 listing Wood's "Errors", "Many records which may have had urban warming trends were removed for other reasons...".  The truth of this could be assessed if Jones et al published a digital list of excluded stations.
A truer statement covering the general issue of  Jones et al 1986 a &  b use of city data would be "We used any city data acceptable to us."
Clearly, the science establishment and policy makers must revisit these issues to correct the mistakes made 15 years ago in letting this very poor science be a cornerstone of  the whole IPCC thrust to change global economic policy.   Back to 20th Anniversary review page