Benny,
     I don't think the responses are adequate.

  1. You can't refer to your own web site.
  2. Keenan didn't refer to these two papers in 2007 in the draft you sent me. I've
     located one of them so far. The other is in press. He didn't refer to them, though.
  3. He shouldn't refer to something that is not relevant.
  4. Attached is Tao et al (1991). Nowhere in it does it explicitly state for 49
  of the stations claimed to be studied by Jones et al. and Wang et al. are
  'station histories not currently available.  It says this for the 205. I'm attaching
  Tao et al.. It is a scanned pdf, so the find/search facility won't work. Zeng
  had the station histories for the 84 sites we used. They didn't have adequate
  resources in the 1989-90 period to digitise everything. Keenan has been told
  this.
  5. The data on Keenan's web site doesn't show that his statement for the rural sites
  to be true. He only has the station history for one urban sites. We chose those
  with few, if any, site moves.
  6. I am amazed at the response to my point 7. I would have thought that
  looking at the temperature data was essential.
  7. If Keenan doesn't understand the significance of point 8, then he is
  not the skillful statistician he claims to be. It may be peripheral to his
  paper, but if he did any analysis of the temperature data he ought to
  realise its significance.

  Cheers
  Phil