The review itself obviously took place during the six weeks between the date of the early draft and the date of the final version. It might have been an iterative process, whereby the BoM person suggested various changes and the NIWA author debated the points – until final compromises were reached. These reports and exchanges should be in the public domain.

We should be clear that BoM’s review was not an independent “peer review” in the sense that term is usually used by scientists. It wasn’t done at arms length. BoM’s role was that of a paid consultant.

Nice to see your keyboard again, Richard.

Thanks, Alexander. For those who don’t keep up with those leading blogs as often as they want to (me included), you give a good summary.

But the incompetent scientists are protected by the favored status of their “consensus” among the governments of the world, as well as the media. All of our scientific institutions — all the supposed “authorities” — have been suborned to that incompetence. So the people of every country first need to revolt against the “climate policy” plans of their respective governments, and remove their protection of the incompetent scientists, before we can get to the real task of throwing out the incompetent fraudsters, and re-educating the entire scientific community, and all of those who have been, and continue to be, miseducated by it.