Yes, I am.

I have some experience with the peer review system, and I can recognise that if a publisher has gone to the trouble of putting something into a proper pdf format and assigning a DOI number, then you have made it past peer review and it's nearly ready to publish. I am curious as to why the pdf that was put into journal format was not published after being prepared.

If I cannot get a straight answer from you, then who can I ask?

As to the 'view from nowhere', I have no views on that. I would have to think about it.

Mmmm there's Cohenite, yet again either unable or unwilling to answer a simple question with a simple answer.

And yet, despite his exacting critique of the extensive evidence supporting AGW, despite his very high standards in this regard, he is happy to offer a psychological motivation for someone he does not know and has never met penning two lines of parody of TS Eliot (and the trolls, of course).

Methinks it is a case of straining at gnats and swallowing camels.

Just one question, for you, then, Cohenite - do you think Michael Kile's Quadrant article,
"The Aztec Solution to Climate Change"
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2009/6/the-aztec-solution

is a hoax?

What damage spindoc barry? The link says it all – quite sensibly too.

Nevertheless, like Tweedledee and Tweedledum responding in unison, you both ignore the long-term trend.

And like Tweedledee and Tweedledum, neither of you see the flaws in your ideological reasoning.

.

Cohenite Anthony, it really would help if you read the whole WFT link – it’s not about BEST.

Tell you what, just look at the graphs, they all show the same long-term trend, even Roy's UAH.

As for your Judith Curry link – I agree with her; that “particular article goes over the top in essentially dismissing all of AGW as junk science”.

As you point out, she also says “multi-decadal and longer modes of natural internal variability are dismissed in the attribution arguments …”

No, they are not.

In fact, Judith then goes on to exhibit a "cascade of errors" (opinions) which are in and of themselves, self-defeating.

bonmot, like I said, the dabate has left you where you were years ago, more of the same won't cut it. You need something NEW.

"For you this means you are stuck with “forecasts by scientists”. These must be regurgitated endlessly with links because they cannot renew, they are political constructs and you are stuck holding them as they rapidly and publicly erode".

"This leaves you and your like as the “Eunuchs at the Orgy”. You now realize that everything you “believed” was knowledge is not real and that far from being the centre of things, you are destined to be forever on the margin".

Enjoy being marginalised.

bugsy, contact the authors of the papers.

survivor, I don't know if Mr Kile is serious or not; why don't you ask him.

bonmot, your faith in AGW science is touching, just as your dismissal of Judith Curry, one of the authors of the various BEST reports, is bizarre; you seem to accept everything which is said by pro-AGW 'scientists'; I'd wager you accept everything which is contained in the BOM 2011 Report; I have already linked to an analysis of some of the defects of that report but since you obviously haven't read it I'll link to it again:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2012/01/analysis-of-bom-annual-report.html#comment-form

My apologies cohenite, I thought you were one of the authors of those papers.

I may actually contact the journal directly, I'm sure they can explain it.