My question has always been about methodologies. How do you determine a baseline value if you don’t take site effects into account.

Your methods seem suspect to me as the baseline values seem to increase arbritarily at recent times in some cases, or else the data you used is different in some cases to that I downloaded from NIWA.

I can appreciate you don’t have an easy understanding if the scientific issues. You should’t be obliged to defend work you did not do.

Of couse, one of your “science team” could easily clear this up by participating in the discussion,

Why don’t they

I clarified our analysis for you. What is your response?

Have you asked NIWA for the adjusted data?

I can’t find any such graph. Only plots of “anomalies”. Logically one should be ablec to recalculate the raw data by adding a constant baseline value. This is not the case for your graphs. In some cases a larger baseline value has been used in recent times. At least that is what my analysis is showing.

Either the data you used is not exactly the same as on the NIWA database in all cases, or some funny sort of adjustments have been carried out by your anonymous “scientific team”.

Either way it does raise questions about the competency of the people who constructed those graphs.

Granted, you are under no legal obligation to reveal your methods or adjustments. Bit surely there is an ethical obligation. Your denial raises questions about your motives and procedures.

By the way, as well as the data in your figures not coming “straight from NIWA (they are not unadjusted temperature values) they are also not monthly values as you claim.

The analysis continues and I will report my conclusions in due course.

And taking up your point about NIWA not releasing information – pots and kettles!

Not quite. NIWA is a public agency bound by at least the Official Information Act and the Public Records Act and are obliged to collect, store and disseminate information for public use. NIWA has no right to refuse our request. However, we refused your request on the grounds that you weren’t being honest with us when you claimed you had reconstructed NIWA’s adjustments.

Anyway, there is no information to “disclose” to you. There’s nothing in our report that does not come from NIWA, except for our graph of combined unadjusted temperatures, since there are various ways to construct it. Not that it’s important, it’s just there for an overview — the individual graphs show the actual temperature readings (anomalies) before and after the adjustments, both of which come from NIWA, one of which you can get from their web site.

If you want NIWA’s adjusted data, ask NIWA for it, see what they say. Make sure you come back here and tell us their response!

The data from the web site confirms NIWA made adjustments without declaring what they are. The graphs we provide in our paper confirm that NIWA produced a warming trend which had not been present.

If you want to check what we’ve done, get the data, graph it and compare with ours. Simple.

there is no way of checking that the data you used is the same as that on the NIWA database.

Yes there is, just compare your graphs with ours. But you must at least try to download the data yourself.

Of course, you don’t have Salinger’s adjusted data. What a shame. Where can you get it? I know — you can ask NIWA for it! We did.

We’re still asking.

Despite your denial, I don’t think you actually feel confident in the analysis used in this discredited report.

Analysis? Here’s our analysis: NIWA made changes to these raw data; what are they?

Analyse that!

For readers I repeat them here:

However, in the interests of other readers I will place again your words against the misinformation of “Our paper does not say what you allege” I quote from your discredited report:

Your report also included the following hysterical statements:
Scientists “created a warming effect where none existed.” That “the shocking truth is that the oldest readings were cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming.” And “we have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emission of CO2 – it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace.”

Ethically you should stop trying to excuse yourself and just admit they were wrong. And apologise.

The fact is that this report, issued through conspiracy theorist Ian Wishart, has been used to make extreme and unwarranted attacks on our honest scientists. You should take responsibility for that.

The fact that you refuse to does imply that perhaps that was your intention. Certainly the timing does.

And taking up your point about NIWA not releasing information – pots and kettles!:

You have denied requests for the information on the methodology used in your paper, or even the spreadsheet used. My initial analysis (yes I have had to scan and extract information from the graphs) indicates something is wrong. Either not all the data you used is the same as on the NIWA database or some arbitrary (and possibly faulty) method was used to calculate anomalies.

I particular a different baseline appears to have been used in recent times.

Now, if you had been transparent and released this information one could easily check. As it is there is no way of checking that the data you used is the same as that on the NIWA database.

Of course, I will pursue this and report my findings in due time.

But, your denial of any description of methodology or release of the spreadsheet, together with you claim that the “science team” involved wish to remain anonymous does make one suspicious, doesn’t it.

Despite your denial, I don’t think you actually feel confident in the analysis used in this discredited report.