So NIWA used a more “useful” statistical method than R & S (’92) and happily came out with exactly the same result as the unknown Salinger method. The R & S (’92) method comes out with a result in-line with global records and the NZ position in the Southern Ocean where the temperature rise has not been as sustained or dramatic as for the Atlantic, Pacific and (particularly) the Arctic. But NIWA didn’t use it.

Did the technique NIWAS actually used the one that Australia AND GISTemp uses? So you still have an apples-to-apples comparison, even if the apples are rotten?

What is NIWA’s response to your criticism?

Fabulous work. Any insider of NIWA, past rather than present, speaking about the matter? There must be ex-NIWA employees around.

“Any progress finding the 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 joules per annum of ocean heat that the IPCC models accumulate but the ARGO network can’t detect?

Gone missing apparently”

Clark’s effort was impressive but as usual when it all got too inconvenient he got the chop (although he did test the limits). I can just about hear the teeth grinding and see the veins pulsating as the red mist descends – seems to be a leftist thing (think Al Gore’s raging tirade).

http://thestandard.org.nz/nats-and-climate-change-deniers/

The comments on this thread are most enlightening. Apparently this is NZ’s most popular left wing blog. It makes Hot Topic look like a women’s knitting group in comparison. Feel the hate!

Doing scientific work and reviewing scientific work done are two different undertakings but George Laking would prefer not to have to make the distinction. The latter can be done by anyone with sufficient transferable research, technical and analytical skill and with enough education to comprehend the issues. In this respect climate science review is not the sole domain of the IPCC or climate scientists either within or external to the IPCC in spite of the likes of Gearge Laking and Dr Vera Power making out that the IPCC is the only authority and considering it as such.

The NZCSET on the other hand has done both undertakings with the statistical review of the NZ temperature series. Not only that but they have found failings in science that has ultimately been accepted by the IPCC review, ranking it alongside independent debunking (scientific review and work) of Mann’s hockey stick – also science that was accepted by IPCC review.

What I am getting at is that IPCC review of climate science is very light-handed and susceptible to error when the commensurate and competent work (e.g. NZCSET, McIntyre/McKitrick) is absent and this is being gradually exposed as time (and climate) goes on.

Similarly, a mere review is susceptible to error if there is not sufficient skill and education to comprehend the issues especially when combined with an inherent confirmation bias and advocacy slant.

Therefore, a selected (mostly like-minded and factious) group engaging in scientific work that is arms-length assessment by type and title does not guarantee the quality and veracity of the product nor does it ensure that the outcome is also scientific when the process has essentially been hijacked for political purposes, WGI – SPM.

Pedantic – but valid nonetheless.

But we are not fooled by “2500 scientists” (when it’s incorrect) or that the IPCC is a “scientific organisation”, when it’s a political one.

Definition:

Sci`en*tif”ic, a. [F. scientifique; L. scientia
science + facere to make.]
1. Of or pertaining to science; used in science; as,
scientific principles; scientific apparatus; scientific
observations.

2. Agreeing with, or depending on, the rules or principles of
science; as, a scientific classification; a scientific
arrangement of fossils.

3. Having a knowledge of science, or of a science; evincing
science or systematic knowledge; as, a scientific chemist;
a scientific reasoner; a scientific argument.

Bossuet is as scientific in the structure of his
sentences. –Landor.

{Scientific method}, the method employed in exact science and
consisting of: (a) Careful and abundant observation and
experiment. (b) generalization of the results into
formulated “Laws” and statements.

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/scientific

It is only peer-reviewed literature and reports from actual scientific institutions e.g. CERN that conform to all 4 of the above definitions to my mind. so it is misleading to cast the IPCC as doing scientific work when in reality it is merely reviewing work that has already been done. Anyone, not necessarily scientists, can do that as shown by Donna Laframboise.

Equally misleading is the claim that AR4 was the work of “2500 scientists”.unless for example, first on the list of Core Writing Team members:

BERNSTEIN, Lenny
L.S. Bernstein & Associates, L.L.C.
USA

suddenly becomes a scientist by association.

“….the IPCC released a draft report a couple of weeks ago on coping with extreme climate disasters”

That would be the Special Report: “Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation (SREX)”

Quoting:-

“Uncertainty in the sign of projected changes in climate extremes over the coming two to three decades is relatively large because climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability”.

And,

“Climate change signals are expected to be relatively small compared to natural climate variability over the coming two to three decades”

“Long-term trends in normalized economic disaster losses cannot be reliably attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”

Strange that George omitted these quotes from his opinion piece because he’s a Doctor and as George puts it: “Doctors understand what’s going on”.