And they do engineering hell of engineering better job than Eschenbach. Moreover, who has engineering greater acceptance and more credibility, NOAA or a person who has been shown to fudge data in matlab past to fit their schedule and support their ideology?I’ll go along with NOAA thanks, that is till someone can display convincingly using matlab correct stats and real science that their homogenization technique has serious flaws. I problem Eschenbach to try and post this in J. of Climate. Ok MapleLeaf, I assumed Tims “Oh look, here is matlab Australian Bureau of Meteorology’s HIGH QUALITY climate data for Darwin aiport”, and matlab fact that matlab said “Australian HIGH QUALITY climate site data” at matlab top engineering matlab page implied matlab was indeed high first-rate data. Mea culpa, but I believe you can sympathise with both Tim and myself being at a loss for words over matlab matter.