If you’re taking a national average using separate stations what is the point in homogenising local subregions first, e.g. for a site relocation? Or, if you’re trying to determine global trends by measuring winds off the ocean wouldn’t it be better to always measure on the windward coast? How do you decide what makes any one location or regional sub-grouping any more or less relevant in determining a national or a global trend?

If it was to determine the temperature of a particular region, e.g. Wellington, then using NIWA’s homogenisation formula would be appropriate. But, that’s the only time. This business of gridding land areas and giving equal weight to equal area regardless of the number of thermometers actually present there seems dubious at best. So ripe for errors or manipulation.

Local variations are unpredictable and change with time. For example Hokitika South is 0.3C cooler than Hokitika Airport despite being at less elevation.

And if you’re going to talk about making adjustments at individual stations, wouldn’t the urban heat island effect tend to increase temperature with time? The raw figures show a flat trend nationally. Therefore, if the UHI effect is in existence it is masking a cooling trend.

Am I wrong?

Yesterday London’s Guardian, a left-wing paper that has long been squarely in the global-warmist camp, carried a damning report titled “How to Reform the IPCC”:

The IPCC says its reports are policy relevant, but not policy prescriptive. Perhaps unknown to many people, the process is started and finished not by scientists but by political officials, who steer the way the information is presented in so-called summary for policymakers [SPM] chapters. Is that right, the Guardian asked?

“The Nobel prize was for peace not science . . . government employees will use it to negotiate changes and a redistribution of resources. It is not a scientific analysis of climate change,” said Anton Imeson, a former IPCC lead author from the Netherlands. “For the media, the IPCC assessments have become an icon for something they are not… The IPCC should have never allowed itself to be branded as a scientific organisation. It provides a review of published scientific papers but none of this is much controlled by independent scientists.”

In part…
“……………….The University of East Anglia announced yesterday a second inquiry that would investigate the validity of the CRU’s reports, which present evidence that man-made emissions are causing global warming.

The decision to hold a second inquiry is an admission that Sir Muir’s investigation will not be sufficient to restore trust in claims that the world is at grave risk from rising temperatures. The university is one of Britain’s leading research centres on climate change and helps to compile the global temperature record published by the Met Office.

This record is used by the Government to justify its targets for heavy cuts in carbon emissions.

The Royal Society, a fellowship of leading scientists, has agreed to help the university to choose the team that will conduct the new inquiry. However, the university itself will have the final decision on who is selected. It pledged that the members would have “the requisite expertise, standing and independence”. ……………….

Mmmmm . they select their own investigators……………… doesnt sound right..

Its interesting that the big conference was held in Copenhagen…………As the bard himself said – “theres something rotten in the state of Denmark”.

Maybe holding the IPCC conference was one of the worlds great Freudian slips maybe.

What’s wrong with anonymity? Deal with the facts that emerge. Deal with NIWA’s disgraceful behaviour.

Cheers.

But perhaps this coalition could also take that lesson on board.

Why should the “science team” behind this discredited report and graph desire anonymity?
Why can’t they face up and discuss the problems with the report and graph?
Why should they insist on using Richard as a conduit?

Gooses and ganders?
All that is highly unusual.