The pool is too small.

Does anyone have a reasonable explanation as to why NIWA faked these results?

And so – about NIWA?

But, no, after you deleted my comment about your associations with Rodney Hide, The ACT Party and the NZ Centre for Polirtical research (Extreme right wing “think Tank” with international links exposed by Nicky Hager) I did say I had a rule of no further commenting on blogs censoring comments.

First time I have seen scientists disowning their work like this.

Broken windows, jobs, etc. Pull the other one.

At least Doug Edmeades case is obvious – he uses it to appeal to his clients.

The extremist nonsense you mention is deplorable, to be sure. Yet some scientists do use nom-de-plumes, like Tamino. It doesn’t matter, I treat what they say as commentary and examine what they say for any truth it might contain. If they wanted to publish in a journal, then of course they would be identified and we wouldn’t know their other identity, would we?

Some of the Coalition scientists are young men, with jobs in commerce and industry that would be unnecessarily disturbed by association with the volatile and emotive realm of the climate change scam. I respect their desire to take a back seat. It doesn’t worry me, I’m keen to spread the true facts and I have no reputation to damage by being in the front row.

It would be very nice if you could find something else to write about now. Such as the question I asked you about NIWA and their shenanigans. I mean, have you looked in Salinger’s thesis for the “methods” and the “SOA” NIWA claimed were there?

But anyway, good to see you back here.

Cheers.

Even in NZ our Chief Scientific Advisor to the PM has got extreme threats.

Yet I don’t see any climate scientist hiding behind false names.

(If your anonymous “science team” is so frightened of bricks how come they allow you to be used as the fall guy. You make a foll of yourself with your lack of scientific knowledge but I am sure on-one is throwing bricks through your window).

No – its a clear indication that Rupert (if s/he exists) does not have the confidence in his/her words to put his/her name to it.

Tell me any other scientists who has or is doing such things? In the scientific community this would indicate a complete lack of integrity. No one would bother reader such rubbish.

Ties in with you refusal to make your data or methodology available (see emails)

I have never before come across “scientists” who refuse to take responsibility for their work.

That indicates a complete lack of integrity.

If the author has any confidence in this analysis – why remain anonymous????