I didn't follow-through my threat earlier on in this thread, but I now have time and I'm taking action now. Poirot, Bon Mot and Cohenite have all been suspended. It doesn't look to me that there is much difference between the exchanges of any of them. Graham Moderator

A red cross for calling someone an idiot? You must be joking? I've supplied link after link to papers and indicated a willingness to discuss the science; bonmot is acting like an angry groupie going around trying to dig up 'dirt'; give your avuncular advice to him.

In respect of the Stockwell paper about the 'break' in temperature a similar analysis was done by Breusch and Vahid, whose update to their 2008 paper was featured in Garnaut's 2nd update which is discussed here:

http://jennifermarohasy.com/2011/03/garnaut%e2%80%99s-second-update-sceptics-are-the-white-swans/

However, while B&V also statisticially isolate a 1976 break, the deterministic method is stronger than their unit root analysis which leads them to dismiss the 1998 break. The point about that which Garnaut didn't seem to appreciate is that the unit root analysis by B&V is by necessity not associated with periodic macro-climate features or supportive of a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature.

Anyway I find it amazing that anyone would stoop to the old peer reviewed criteria for dismissing any aspect of the AGW discussion; peer review in AGW is shot to pieces and has been revealed as a self-serving process by the scientists working in the field. The real analysis has always been in the blogs by the likes of McIntyre, lucia, Jeff Id and increasingly Curry.

[Deleted for abuse.]