Graham Y, I think this is the latest graph from NIWA. Based on the associated comment this is looking increasingly curious.

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/category/niwa/

GrahamY: try here;

http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publications/news/all/7-station-series-review

For a closer look at the "graph", put cursor over it and click to enlarge.

It seems some so called 'sceptics' get their information from 'anti-global warming' sites. Real sceptics would go to the primary source (in this case NIWA) - it is not that hard, really.

Perhaps you should start another off-topic thread Graham. 'Climate science' is complex though and I don't see any benefit other than to give armchair pseudo-scientists a box to stand on.

Yes, you'd have to say that the actual charts don't bear out the media release from the Climate Science Coalition. There's been barely any change at all, and it makes no difference to the trend.

However, there does seem to be something in the proposition that it hasn't warmed since the 60s and that all the warming was before that. Difficult to tell without having the data to plot, and if that is the case the Climate Science Coalition could have been making that point on the old data.

Peter Hume: 1.Scientists of the calibre of the IPCC lead authors would be funded for research and travel whichever field they were in; and thus their personal interest does not explain their working on global warming. 2. References to proofs that the science is dodgy? 3.You are right that the science does not dictate what the political or economic response should be. That is the main reason why the conspiracy theories are so weird.
EQ: See http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60033/IDO60033.2009.pdf The BoM says the sea around Tuvalu is rising at 4.7 mm/year. Not much – hard to see in the graphs – but enough to do damage over some decades.
Senior Victorian: 1. The step from the second to the third sentence in your para 2 is a non-sequitur. 2. Reference please for the claim re the historical temperature record.
Spindoc: 1. Which of my claims rests in any way on my authority? All are referenced to appropriate bodies such as national weather bureaus, peak scientific societies and so on. 2.You don’t need to be a scientist to know that the Royal Society is a reputable source of information. Ditto the Encyclopaedia Britannica. 3. Don’t send scientific claims to me. Get them published in reputable journals. That is where the science is made – and occasionally unmade.
Raycom: 1. In your view what would be ‘evidence that convincingly demonstrates that global warming has been caused by anthropogenic gas emissions’? 2. What did you think of the credentials of the people on the reviews of the CRU and IPCC. Aren’t they just the sort of people who would be on a Royal Commission? Why wouldn’t the outcome of a Royal Commission be rejected if it upheld AGW just as these reviews have been?
Peter Hume: On the causes and physical consequences of climate change I think you will find answers to your questions in the thousands of scientific papers summarised in the IPCC 4th report. On the political, economic and moral questions there are helpful discussions in the Stern and Garnaut reports. Happy to discuss these point by point.

Jon J: See above re enquiries. On NZ’s temperature record, their National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research has an account rather different from what you claim. They say
The last overall review of the seven station adjustments was performed in 1992. In 2010, as a result of increased interest in the series, NIWA re-analysed the adjustments for the seven locations.
The key result of this revisiting is that the New Zealand-wide warming trend is almost exactly the same as in our previous assessment. In other words, either approach gives an accurate trend result. So without a doubt, on the basis of the 'seven-station' series, New Zealand did indeed get about 0.9°C warmer over the course of last one hundred years.
http://www.niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/news/all/nz-temp-record/seven-station-series-temperature-data
Please move on to the ignoring stage.
Graham Y: See link above. Why didn’t Jon J give it?
Viking13: 1. Try IPCC 4 Vol1 chap 8 on the computer models www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm 2. What would you take as evidence that warming is anthropogenic? 3. IPCC 4 Vol1 Chaps 3, 4 and 6 deal with evidence of warming.
Adderworks: Try referring your potential donors to the official reports (see article). In my experience they like facts not flummery.
Spindoc: agreed link wars is a game, but the science isn’t. Science is not decided here but in the refereed journals. One point of disagreement though. Those who accept (pending evidence to the contrary) the AGW theory should not be categorised as believers in contrast to the sceptics who reject it. AGW is supported by all the world’s senior scientific bodies. Find one national academy that does not. The so called sceptics are really gullibilists accepting evidence on the level of Chariot of the Gods as if it could be considered the equal of a paper in Nature!
Bonmot: thanks. Why can’t the gullibilists go straight to the site?

You can get the data here http://cliflo.niwa.co.nz/

Happy plotting and Happy Christmas.