You apaprently have a reading comprehension problem as you continue to attribute statements to me that I did not make (as is clearly seen). and to dodge the main question - why has the number of reported stations decreased 5000 (circa 1990) to 1500 (today). Now how is a 25 year old study going to answer that question? How is it germaine? Of course I was not referring to the one you linked to, but the CURRENT one. Which would answer your questions if YOU READ IT.
You really need to go back and start reading my posts and what they were in direct reply to. My replies (in which I posted that study) were in response to your GIStemp accusations regarding the legitimacy of their global temperature averages because they are "filtering" out stations from colder regions. In your post (#1087), you cite 4 articles, 3 of which were in regards to GISTemp's studies.
If you had done any of the reading I had posted, then you'd know that even though the study I posted was from 1987, it's methodology (that is explained in the study you didn't read) is still used for all of their reports. Your claim that it isn't the "current one" further highlights your lack of knowledge on the subject.
Again, as I stated, the reason for the number of station drop-offs is stated in the study. If you don't care to read it, fine. That's your problem. But, I am telling you that if you read it, you would understand why your cited websites are wrong. On the GISS website, they explain what methods they use in full detail (they have 2 method's, the one I linked to and another in 1999 which explains the further drop-off of station use through the 1990's): http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
You're misquoting yourself even. You are claiming you weren't refering to a particular study (that I linked to) when you linked to 3 articles that are refering to the methodologies used in that exact study that I linked to. That doesn't make sense at all...
And now you are going on and on about the credibility of your sources after I just debunked 3 of yours. I am sure you have credible sources. I am not countering ALL of your sources. My posts refer to the sources you linked to in reply #1087. If you want to link directly to some studies that you'd like me to read, by all means do so. But my responses were in direct reply to the 3 crap articles you posted above regarding "dropping meteorological stations from the dataset" conspiracy theory that you seem to have.
If you read the study you'd understand why even if you added in 10000 meteorological stations in the Arctic circle it won't skew the global temperature average to colder temperatures. Conversely, you could at in 10000 meteorological weather stations in sunny Florida and it will not skew the global temperature average to warmer temperatures either. Read the study and stop making stupid claims that they are filtering out weather stations in the arctic to skew the temperatures to the high side of things.
I linked to the study that reveals their methodologies that they currently use. If you don't want to read it, then I am not going to argue any longer with you. But, by all means, continue to post all sort of articles like the 3 (in reply #1087) you posted. It really shows how ignorant you are to the people who did read the study.