"The claim by Dr Watt was about the actual method used (not any criteria) and that it produced results that were the same as RS93 for the increase in trend per century to the second decimal place. Is Anthony Cox really arguing here that a difference at a third decimal place in a century long trend is important?"

It's Dr Wratt not Watt; method, criteria, the point is NIWA's experts do not say what method they used in the review and that there are any number of alternative methods which 'develope' over time which can be used according to NIWA [paragraph 80]. They further say that whatever methods they used all produce essentially the same trend.

The point is not the "third decimal place" difference in the results from the use of the different methodologies/criterias but that there is no public scrutiny of these methodologies/ criterias by NIWA.

As for your interpretation of paragraphs 148-149, tell me how many methodologies/criterias were used by NIWA in the various forms of the adjusted temperature; and can you provide a link to where those different methodologies/criterias are described.

That's what we need, a lawyer telling us about the shortcomings of science...

"That's what we need, a lawyer telling us about the shortcomings of science..."

I agree; those shortcomings are so obvious even an idiot could pick them up; what, you can't, oh dear.

@ "can you provide a link to where those different methodologies/criterias are described."

It's all there at the NIWA website. As a "lawyer" you would/should have known this - unless you're playing games.

Take Dunedin as an example:

http://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/default/files/import/attachments/Dunedin_CompositeTemperatureSeries_13Dec2010_FINAL.pdf

bonmot; the code for the methodology used in the site adjustments you have linked to, or indeed any of them, is not included; the adjustment therefore cannot be replicated.

The link at the beginning of the article, presumably to the code, does not work.

The article says this:

"In February 2010, NIWA documented the adjustments in use at that time (see web link above). These adjustments to the multiple sites comprising the ‘seven-station’ series were calculated by Salinger et al. (1992), using the methodology of Rhoades and Salinger (1993), which extended the early work on New Zealand temperatures by
Salinger (1981). Subsequent to 1992, the time series have been updated regularly, taking account of further site changes as circumstances required."

There is no evidence [codes, calculations etc] to verify RS93 was used on the 7 series adjustment, the 2009 conversion to 11 sites, or the 2010 review; or even what subsequent methods were used.

The detail in your linked article provides the results of the adjustments and a general description of the principles of the method of adjusting; but, as I say, without a code the process cannot be replicated.

This is the recurrent issue with AGW results; the code and detail of the adjustments are not provided; from Mann to NIWA to BOM the code is not provided; so we have to take on faith that the process is correct.

With NIWA the raw data and the RS93 code is available so to that extent that alleged adjustment can be replicated; but, of course, that is what the litigation was about and the court rejected the Trust alternative results because it said the 'experts' who did that alternative adjustment were not experts.

That stalemate will remain until NIWA releases its codes or the court accepts the legitimacy of alternative adjustment results.

25 minutes is not enough time for you to have done your homework.

All the information can be found at the NIWA website.