For NIWA to reproduce the original results without access to the original modifications while also disallowing the orginal results as worthy of NIWA approval, and to get the BoM to produce a clearly qualified and nuanced support of the seven station study without having to demonstrate or detail why they neither reject nor promote the 7SS, shows tremendous political machinations in the background.

A simple “We looked at it, and its bloody excellent, mate!” and “We re-did it, and the original Salinger work, however he did it, was spot on, mate!”, should have been possible for such a technical subject and a precise reproduction. The public distancing by the technical worker-bee is telling, but unfortunately it doesn’t have any legislative volume.

We live in weird times. It’s not nature that shows the New Normal. It is politics.

Barry Brill has being doing a great job getting stuff onto Scoop.co.nz btw

When NIWA reviewed that record in response to our questions and criticisms (releasing the “review report” in December 2010), they kept the same seven stations but recreated the adjustments (we asked them what the adjustments were, but they could not tell us because they had lost the records). Remember that raw temperature readings often need adjusting for non-climatic influences over the years like trees growing up and sheltering the station or lots of new roads and nearby buildings raising the temperature.

We still have a 7SS, sometimes referred to as the NZT7, though now I can’t find where that came from. NIWA’s report was titled “Report on the Review of NIWA’s ‘Seven-Station’ Temperature Series.” I’ve just checked NIWA’s web site and they refer to the temperature series as “the ‘seven-station’ temperature series.” Among ourselves, the Coalition tends to call the old series the 7SS and the new one the NZT7.

So, there’s just the one seven-station series, made from seven weather stations. NIWA recently recreated it and got the BoM to peer-review that reconstruction. It’s still the 7SS (for want of a better abbreviation), but there’s an old one and a new one.

That help?

What is the legal ramifications for NIWA of not filing within its mandated time-frame? Or did the “tentative” agreement give them legal reason to say they did so?

I don’t know. Everything is being done before a judge, so I guess he decides on the ramifications. I’m not sure I even want to discuss the details; in mentioning them here, I do hope our legal counsel doesn’t refuse to answer my questions in future.

I have to say something, though, because there’s such a lot of interest, not just in New Zealand, but around the world. The case is important to individuals and groups in many countries who wonder how to make an impression on this CAGW colossus that is almost totally out of control. How does David defeat this enormous Goliath?

Perhaps a simple court case against the national temperature record might do it? As the murderer Al Capone was brought to heel by tax indiscretions. Most of the “scientific” case for CAGW rests on predicted effects, but some of it depends on the 20th century warming. If that were destroyed, the science falls apart and, more importantly, the general public can grasp what’s happened.

It’s not rocket science, but simple fraud. Even if it was driven by the purest of motives. Like Sir John Houghton said: “If we want a good environmental policy in the future we’ll have to have a disaster.” Purest of motive.

When we started this investigation, we were just trying to winkle out the details, but now it seems quite on the cards that we might cause a rewrite of the 20th century temperature record. And destroy untoward warming.

That should rattle their cage. Might make one or two journo’s take an interest.

Or, how about proposing that John Boscawen asks the above as a parliamentary question?

The Department of Circumlocution would be proud of its grandchild.

It’s all a timing matter. Methinks a bunch of people want the Climate and carbon tax to go away. They’ll keep the taxes, of course, but the controversy can just wither on the vine while the lead authors ride out the ends of their careers.