Too bad your source and your bullshit don't agree.
I couldn't have said it better myself... to you.
Could you be a little more explicit?
What precisely is it that I've said is bullshit since at this point I've yet to make a claim other than to point out a number of sources and to point out the lack of proof in psycho's claims?
OK, I'm looking.
Lots of graphs with squiggly lines all over them. The first thing they do is make reference to the NIWA's website and claim to have registered and thereby been able to download "raw data" that then showed no upward trend. It then goes on to show the "adjustments" and basically claim some nefarious manipulation.
First off I have no access to the same raw data and even if I did would not know what to do with it.
Secondly there are no references whatsoever, no peer review, no publishing by a reputable journal, basically nothing whatsoever to document these claims.
Thirdly the so-called "analysis" abruptly cut off the data at 2000 even though the article itself mentions that data through 2008 was available. What's wrong? Did the data from 2000 to 2008 contradict what they were trying to show?
Fourthly the only names the article lists are that of Terry Dunleavy and Richard Treadgold, neither of which have any credentials in any related scientific field that I could discover. Please correct me if I'm wrong and supply what education and experience either of these folks have that warrents accepting their totally undocumented findings.
Fifthly, and most importantly, why don't *you* take a look the following article New Zealand Climate Science Coalition caught lying about temperature trends that adresses your specific article and contains a number of links to corroborating evidence.
Your so called proof is a total fabrication of lies put out by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition which contains no actual climate scientists. Basically what they did was to combine all the data from different sites as if they were all from a single site.
Here's more evidence of their lies you should take a look at.
I'm sorry but the bullshit is yours.
Also I'm not even going to bother to address your reference to Inhofe's so-called debunking of the scientific consensus from 2007. It was crap then and it smells even worse 2 years later.
Finally this doesn't mean that I'm going to bother going into this much detail to refute every piece of drivel that someone posts. It's awful easy to say "Look here" and give a link and then place the burden of proof on the other guy. In the future you need to put a little more effort into your posts, I'm not going to do all your work for you.