2 of the papers are up at arXiv.org for public comment; they've gone through that process and have been published regardless of not yet being in the major journals.

So, as for not commenting on "rejected draft manuscripts", that's pretty weak especially since Professor Trevor Breusch has had a pot-shot at the 'break' paper. That is why they are up at arXiv.org [and incidentally bugsy, you try and get a paper up there], for public comment.

By way of clarification only the 'break' and McLean Comment papers are there; David is still working on the 3rd paper, a draft of which is here:

http://landshape.org/enm/files/2011/01/walkerarticle.pdf

I am sure the good professor has a much greater interest in climate science and statistics than myself. I don't think that it is necessarily inappropriate for anybody to comment, just myself. Also it would be a complete waste of time for both of us.

I guess web publishing of unreviewed or rejected material is the way of the future.

Blog on.

Children of the world, listen up … you are being enlisted here as the advance guard of the anti-climate crusade by some self-proclaimed “climatologist” that straddles from Nova to Marohassy, from Watts’ to his own blog. And he wants to “discuss science” with you – or at least, his version of it. Yes, it does matter that this ‘climatologist extraordinaire’ keeps changing the playing field, often back to his favourite blog site, or his favourite off-topic rant, because attention is always drawn to what he wants to “discuss” – not your opinion. Be careful though, when challenged, he resorts to the old ad-hom canard – accusing you of exactly the thing he engages in himself. Sure, meandering off-topic on an opinion site happens, quite regularly in fact. But, not usually in the form of deliberate hijacking of the thread, or the topic itself, to promote one’s own attention deficit disorder.

Of course, it is imperative that you, dear Klimate Kids, understand the stated estimates (with error bars and measures of confidence of course) of the variability of ocean heat content, or the periodicity (or lack thereof) of natural variation in climate forcings, or whatever else the “published climatologist” wants to “discuss”. Why, let it even be known that the warming trend in ocean heat content has subjugated earth’s heat balance this last half century and this trend has been attributed to the increase in GHG’s - again with a stately degree of confidence, and again despite the shrills to the contrary, by the contrary. It is also required reading by the children of the world that this imperious buffoon wants this particular opinion site to be the place to “discuss” systemic errors in bathythermograph measurements, the 3-sigma variance in regional extreme weather events, and the divergence of Hadley cells and the confluence of the cells of the Walker Circulation.

Yeah, right – bye for now boys and girls.

bonmot, as usual gets all upset when things don't work out for him, and they never do. We've taled about your anger management before have we not?

So the attempted intimidation by discovering a poster's identity didn't work, did you think it would.

I remember some time ago you responded to someone who demanded you expose your identity, as this is not the first time you have pursued the identity of posters you disagree with, and your response was that you had been "terrorized" as had your family, when your identity had been exposed in the past - so you didn't want to.

So keeping in mind you're clearly a professional activist .. why is it OK for you to use these tactics and not others? So who do you work for now? Who's paying you for these online forays? Big Green clearly, but which groups?

The responses you complain about from various posters, particularly your last post, you actually chased and pursued .. why now are you all sarcastic about it, it's what YOU wanted.

Unless, that's the current strategy of the activist movement, al la Obama, demand something and when you get it, complain it was not really what you wanted.

Thankfully you are not an educator and I cannot imagine what you would be "teaching" to our youth.

It is deplorable to consider it acceptable to brainwash kids, mind you, most of them are resilient and quietly question the BS they get from various sources, particularly when it is at odds with the world view of those around them.

>>Children of the world, listen up<<

Who are you talking to, bonmot? I'm pretty sure there aren't any kids reading these comments - even though the bickering around here can get very childish at times, kids would find this website somewhat less exciting than Kenneth Branagh's four hour Hamlet.

"imperious buffoon"?!

I thought poor old Lord Monckton had a monopoly on that diatribe.

bonmot has mentioned a few topics of interest, particularly Ocean Heat Content [OHC}, which is supposedly where Trenberth's "missing heat" is being stored.

I can't help it if this is an area of AGW which is fraught with measurement problems and which features continual 'official' 'adjustments', all of which increase OHC. For instance when the ARGO float regime was introduced in 2003, there was an immediate 'splicing' problem between the new and old OHC data, discussed here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/02/anomalous-spike-in-ocean-heat-content/

In 2008 there was another 'adjustment to OHC which also made it bigger, discussed here:

http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/11/revised-ocean-heat-content.html

Then in 2011, another adjustment, making OHC very much bigger, discussed here [look at the 1st animation]:

http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/july-to-september-2011-nodc-ocean-heat-content-anomalies-0-700meters-update-and-comments/

All these adjustments, making OHC bigger, are at a time when SST is falling dramatically and where the professed standards of accuracy are of the ‘dance on the head of a pin' variety; or as Dr Eschenbach notes "claims that we can measure the temperature of the upper kilometer and a half of the ocean with an error (presumably one sigma) of only ± eight thousandths of a degree … " [see: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/31/krige-the-argo-probe-data-mr-spock/ ]

These are all valid and vital critiques of AGW science, all of which should be part of the discussion. People like bonmot take this lack of discussion at official levels as evidence of the science being settled when in fact it is just more evidence that the 'science' is corrupted.