Sorry for the back and forth posting. I have a two year old going rogue. Figures 2 and 3 are the relevant ones.

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/mmh_asl2010.pdf

Heres the paper.
The end result is that where Santer et al found the error bars could overlap, McKitrick found that the models overestimated temperatures by 200 and 400% in the lower and mid troposphere respectively.
This represents a basic validation test of climate models over a 30 year period, a validation test which SHOULD be fundamental to any belief in the models, and their usefulness for projections of global warming in the future.

Martin
What is stopping other scientists from verifying the data is the absence of the calculations to the changes of the data itself....
Did Euan Mason "test" the data or has he just expressed an opinion without backing it up?
With out the methodology anyone would be just guessing. And it looks like NIWA are just guessing.
The other point is that NIWA are public servants. We pay for their work. So they are the ones beholden to us to justify their research.
Dont you agree that they should be accountable?
The question remains.

Sorry,
McKitrick, McIntyre and Herman et al 2010.

Its very mathematical though, which is appropriate as so was Santer et al 2008.
Which is what you would expect as no physical observations have been able to find the hot spots so modelling was used

I must admit to being intrigued by this court case especially whether a court is the right place.
There are certainly problems with the accuracy of temperature measuring stations, not so bad in NZ but real bad in many places around the world. Its only been since 1979 that we have been able to have accurate data from satellites measuring temperature in the troposphere that we have had data which can be trusted.
NIWA have certainly stuffed up by not providing the mathematical calculations which justify the alterations they have made to the seven station data set from 1850. Oh they have showed by how much they increased it but not the reasons expressed mathematically.
Their alterations changed raw data showing no warming (cooling rather!) to a 1 degree rise in the last 100 years. The rest of the world is .7, so why is NZ higher than the rest of the world?
If the science is to be robust then let other scientists test it.
Whats to fear?

The other thing is that for those who believe that CO2 has caused this warming, they now have a problem.
The theory that CO2 mixing with water vapour creates positive feedback and hence is amplified creating heat in hot spots and hence temp rises has now been proved to be incorrect in a Peer Reviewed Research paper.
This is not to say there isnt warming as clearly there is. Its just not being caused by CO2.

Disclaimer- I'm not a member of the CSC and I aint funded by big oil. Just an intrigued NZer to has read enough to realise the IPCC doesnt actually know for sure....