I'm becoming less and less impressed with "computer models" given their failure to predict rainfall accurately over timescales of 4 days. If "models" can't get it right over 4 days, why should we have faith in models precicting climate 100 years out? I'm also mystified by the selection of the period 1961-1990 as some sort of magical baseline against which all climate parameters are compared. What's so special about this particular 30 year period? The Bureau's commitment to long-term climate monitoring must be questioned given its downgrading of many weather stations, and reliance on unreliable automated equipment.

Even if the earth is actually warming significantly (which is doubtful) I've seen no proof whatsoever that any such warming is anthropogenic. There have been periods in the past with somewhat warmer temperatures (Mediaeval Warm Period) and periods with significantly cooler temperatures (Little Ice Age), with nary a coal-fired power station in sight.

I also question the oft-repeated phrase "since accurate instrumental records commenced", the time for which is given as 1850. That far back, instrumental records are extremely sparse, and their accuracy doubtful. Witness the deletion of Australia's long-term "record maximum temperature" at Cloncurry in the 19th century, the reason, questionable equipment and siting. Actually, one of the reasons, perhaps, that 1961-1990 is used as a "baseline" is that there were actually enough "accurate" weather station sites upon which to calculate meaningful averages. Since that time, automation and satellites have taken over from "people reading thermometers", and the actual thermometers have changed too (from mercury and alcohol to electronic).

About the only good thing to come from the AGW debate is that nuclear power can be discussed without mass hysteria resulting.

You can find the details here: http://tinyurl.com/396szjk

'Official' may be the wrong word, but certainly the NZ Government were prepared to accept the doctored figures and use them as the basis for climate policy.

And of course it didn't happen without a fight:

“But we note that, after 12 months of futile attempts to persuade the public, misleading answers to questions in the Parliament from ACT and reluctant but gradual capitulation from NIWA, their relentless defence of the old temperature series has simply evaporated. They’ve finally given in, but without our efforts the faulty graph would still be there.”

Mr Treadgold described the replacement as a full exoneration of the criticism levelled at the Coalition by NIWA, saying: “All we ever asked for were the adjustments and the reasons for them. The discourteous reproaches and misleading academic references we received from them were surprising. For them finally to agree with us, throw away the series and recreate it is a complete vindication for us.”

PeterA, you are right. There are many websites that debunk the poppycock that other websites post. Then there are those websites that double debunk the poppycock that has been debunked on other websites.

“Link Wars” is a futile diversion and a safe haven for the true believers. You have your favorite links and others have theirs. You believe, they are skeptical.

Like our illustrious Professor, most of us have absolutely no qualifications to make any meaningful determination.

Believers are just that. Skeptics however, want to see both sides of the debate reconciled by those best qualified to do so, which clearly excludes us because we are not qualified.

Believers on the other hand do not want this reconciliation because it presents a “risk” to their belief. Why else would so many in the warming camp want to fight by proxy, my links against your links. Doesn’t this evidence that until and unless there is scientific reconciliation we cannot and will not know the scale of any warming threat?

Link Wars is a game for the public to enjoy, we channel our “champions” on forums like this. We all need to be aware that this is not reality and shouldn’t take it too seriously.

If those who “believe” wish to play the game that says, “I don’t need to visit nzclimatescience.com because I can just go to another link and have it debunked” then let the game continue, but please don’t try to make it some sort of reality.

It’s just a game for goodness sake.

For those of us who do wish take it seriously, we need to take the proselytizing howling amateurs out of the equation and bring both scientific persuasions together. That way you can see your scientists dealing directly with contrary scientists, not the public bashing each other over the head with “links”

Wasn't aware of that. Haven't seen it anywhere else, but it does look pretty damning. No warming in NZ since the 60s, and if the warming really is global there should have been.

Have you seen a copy of the graph? Have you got a link for that?

BTW, we might be veering a bit close to going off-topic here. Perhaps we should think about starting another thread.

I deal with donations in Virginia for local Eco projects, and the Climategate scandal eliminates the pool of un-tainted data. Thus, I find it hard to get mad at the people against global warming when it is the pro-grlobal warming people that admit to faking data and altering numbers that cause the most trouble. How can you respond to people that doubt you? Honestly, you cannot blame them. "I am sorry the data is deleted, but will you still give us your money in a failing economy. Sure, there is no solid information for comparison to back up the claims! We are nice guys, though." Most people define that as a scam.

The common response, a legit question, when I hear people ask about it involves the foundation of the science. It is hard to find material that does not link to the "altered" reports and findings to provide a good case for it at this point. So, you have hundreds of people that claim the fake reports all agree on something, but there is no way to check the results.

Graham Y, the latest on this saga is on the nzclimatescience site. The following does refer to a new set of temp.records and a graph but I don’t have the graph. Yet.

<< Spokesman for the joint temperature project, Richard Treadgold, Convenor of the CCG, said today: “We congratulate NIWA for producing their review of the NZ temperature record — more than a year after we challenged it — and we think it’s great that NIWA have produced a graph with full details behind it.>>