I repeat – why think it is surprising?

If no trend had been shown – now that would be surprising and would warrant further investigation as a possible hoax.

My questions were why do you think NIWA’s graph is surprising?

We saw that no alterations to the raw data were signalled by NIWA. We expressed surprise in order to communicate to the public mind that something needed to be done. So that NIWA knew, when we asked for the adjustments, that the public would be behind us.

It was nothing to do with the IPCC.

All I am suggesting is that we have exhausted the adjustments issue. We agree adjustments are necessary.

My questions were why do you think NIWA’s graph is surprising? It is consistent with their graphs for individual stations and for stations where adjustments were not required. All it provides is a longer time period and more precision. The conclusions are the same. There is no reason to concentrate these sort of questions on that particular graph.

And it is in accord with the IPCC summary. The only thing there were completely unequivocal about is that global temperature have increased, especially in the 2nd half of the 20th century.

While NZ could have been an exception, obviously we weren’t.

Barry, don’t invent claims for me. I have no “paper”. I sent Richard a spreadsheet where I had used the NIWA data to reproduce their graph and show that essentially the same result was produced by using a different base period. This was to show that No Mimister was wrong to claim their result was due simply to the choice of base period.

Richard undertook to send me his spreadsheet – it has not arrived yet. But I suspect there may have been a mistake made similar to No Minister’s. However, the fundamental mistake was to combine the data without taking site effects into account.

But I guess that is where the politics come in.

NIWA has produced an 11-station graph, and say those stations require no adjustments. They have produced a 7-station graph and say it requires extensive adjustments, all in the direction of creating a trend.

NIWA has justified none of this. I personally believe many of the adjustments may have been subjective – and driven by a belief (sub-conscious or otherwise) that the series should show a warming trend.

You seem passionately committed to the view that the adjustments are correct. You say you have been able to replicate all the NIWA adjustments, but have never produced your paper. Why don’t you just settle down until NIWA discloses its “recreations”.When they have been fully analysed and replicated, we’ll see who is right.

There are so many typos in this it’s unintelligible. You mis-characterise our motives and actions wildly yet you refuse to read my answers.

We don’t care that NIWA’s graph shows warming. We just asked them to show us how true it is.

You might not like NIWA’s graph but there is nothing remarkable about it. It shoeis warming – and it would very stance if it didn’t. Everbody who has measured temperature over a reasonable time finds warming.

The raw data for sites with a reasonable contiuous record show warming. The amalgamated data just gives a more precise measure of the rate if warming.

So there is no reason to cast doubt on the figure, ad you guys have. No scientific reason.
But you are a political organisation, as you admit, and you clearly have political motives to raise doubt.

The only way you can do this is ignore the actual picture of multiple lines of evidence and invent a conspiracy involving not only all NIWA scientists, but all climate scientists around the world.

That to me is mad. I have no reason to mistrust our scientists, let alone accept a ridicuous conspiracy. But then again Ii don’t have a political motive- just scientific integrity.

I suggest you put aside all your worry about adjustments and discuss why you should doubt the figure seeing it is completely consistent with other measurements where adjustments are not involved because they are not necessary.

I’m no more playing with words than you are listening.

NIWA has never said there are no reasons for adjustments

Correct. I have never said they said that. But I am saying that NIWA have never GIVEN reasons for THESE adjustments, or specified their SIZE.

A man would face up to their mistake and say sorry, not try to blame it on NIWA. NIWA has never said there are no reasons for adjustments.. Come off it. Quite the opposite.

God, politically/ideologically motivated people are annoying. Just won’t deal with reality.

You are right that the report says: “the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections.”

But everyone else understands, from what’s called the “context”, that we are describing NIWA’s information on their web site, which mentions no reasons for any large corrections. We are not presenting a conclusion of ours, merely observing that the reasons are missing. We are not saying there are no site effects, but that they are not described there by NIWA. The data are present, but the reasons for the adjustments applied to them are not present.

The other statements are opinions designed to stir others to some kind of action. We have made no mistakes. What unknown writers here and overseas might or might not have made of our study is not our responsibility.

When you claim that I have “now agreed with you here”, what exactly are you referring to? You make it sound as though I have conceded the need for adjustments, but I have not. I always said adjustments are needed. I have not altered my opinion on that.

You know that we have been asking NIWA for the figures and reasons for the adjustments to the national temperature record. Do you think we would demand that, while believing they should not exist? What kind of twisted logic is that?