Methane is not acting as a poison, so your analogy is inapt. It’s the heat capacity we’re interested in, nothing more. As for the argument being about the existence of a greenhouse effect: pish tosh! What a straw man. I’ve never argued with it, just disagreed it will ever be dangerous. It never was in the past.

The Water Vapour Challenge (Watergate?) is covered well by Crock of the Week http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAtD9aZYXAs it was first known to be an important gas by Tyndall in the 19th Century. By the 1950′s it was well understood how it could be that CO2 and CH4 could have a warming effect despite water absorbing most of the spectrum at sea level. You might like to try reading a history book on global warming, your ignorance is showing (to be charitable).

You’ve partly inspired a whole post.

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:

““the station histories are unremarkable. There are no reasons for any large corrections.”
and of course you went on to produce graphs ignoring the real site effects (Even you now acknowledge that there are site effects and adjustments are necessary – as does your mate conspiracy theorist Ian Wishart).

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.”

Come on Richard. You can’t have it both ways.

Or will you deny that the words I have quoted are in your report.

Truth will always win in the end.

Its claim of no site effects and no need for adjustments (the whole basis of the paper and justification for your attacks on NIWA) was shown wrong.

Our paper does not say what you allege. It says that NIWA gave no reasons for adjustments, NIWA did not reveal the size of the adjustments and NIWA didn’t even mention that adjustments had been made.

Your continual statements about our paper are far from the truth and you have no evidence for them.

Our report tells the truth and cannot be discredited. Tell me one false thing that it says. Look at the individual station graphs and tell me where NIWA gives the sizes and reasons for those adjustments.

That’s all we want. By the way, NIWA are now working on giving us that very information.

You refuse requests to provide methodology that you used (my analysis so far indicates something wrong with your calculation of anomalies in recent years) or the spreadsheet used. This despite initially agreeing to supply this.

So, your report has been discredited, you obviously don’t have any confidence in it yourself (why else deny requests for information) and your “science team” (which initially you denied was involved) “wishes to remain anonymous.

What a fiasco.

But, then again, your aren’t interested in the science are you? Your admit you have political agendas.

For that science can be sacrificed!