cohenite,

I wuz only asking.

It not his status so much, as his expertise that is the question - although the two are definitely linked.

Also I'm a fan of unusual names, and Ferd Berple is rather stunning in a daggy kinda way.

Some vintage IPCC apparatchik nitpicking going on here:

1) “ Just a suggestion … when including large sections from another the most appropriate way is to start with the word 'Quote' and finish with 'End quote'…Also if you are going to add your own emphasis such as the word 'ELIMINATED' then naturally the words 'emphasis added' would also be appropriate.”
[Posted by csteele, Tuesday, 28 August 2012 10:49:37 AM]

(when you can’t debunk the argument nitpick your way around it!)

2) “Who is Ferd Berple?
Is he a peer reviewed statistician? “
[Posted by Poirot, Tuesday, 28 August 2012 1:41:06 PM]

(If s/he does appear on the Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage and sundry AGW hangers-on then we don’t have to answer his arguments …he’s not been peer reviewed!!

S/B

If s/he does NOT appear on the Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage and sundry AGW hangers-on then we don’t have to answer his arguments …s/he’s not been peer reviewed!

csteele, with the patience of Job:

Cox/Cohenite makes the same mistake as Tisdale, even without the quotations.

Neither understand 'time series statistical analysis', a point Tisdale alluded to himself in his WUWT post.

Yes, simple 'trend analysis' isn't rocket science, but Tisdale (and Cohenite) don't apply the correct statistical tools.

To be sure, Anthony Cox need only contact Foster or Rahmstorf and put his 'argument' ... then put their response here.

He won't.

Why? (hint: it's got nothing to do with him being wrong)

Dear cohenite,

I'm not sure you can really sustain the claim that I was verbaling you when I expressly asked you whether I had 'the following correct'. It was up to you to either accept it as a true representation of your position or correct it.

You chose the latter by saying; “It can be broken down into: 1"you believe in the greenhouse effect and that CO2 is a warming gas" Yes, but Greenhouse is a BAD term. 2 "therefore you believe in the science of global warming," That doesn't follow at all.”

Admittedly this has been a little tortuous but I feel we are getting to the nub of the matter.

It seems, setting aside problems you have with the term 'greenhouse' which I acknowledge doesn't adequately describe the effect, you were happy to answer 'yes' when I put to you the following definition and question.

“The greenhouse effect is the mechanism that causes the difference between the Earth's effective radiating temperature of around -18C and the Earth's actual temperature of around 14C. That mechanism involves the radiating properties of gases and water vapour.”

“Do you agree that such a mechanism exists and has a role in warming our planet?”

You went on to qualify it by saying the effect was “not much”.

I had taken this to mean as you accepted the science behind the green house effect and the radiative or warming properties of CO2 and water that ergo you accepted the science behind planetary warming, it was just the extent that was the issue.

I'm wondering if you can help me understand where my logic has fallen down as it seemed pretty clear to me.

Dear SPQR,

Thank you for your input.

I had written a good part of my reply responding to the following assertion “F&R have proven that CO2 has no role in recent climate change!” which I had assumed was cohenite's. It was only on looking up Mr Berple that I found that was not the case. The above post was my rewritten response. I defy you to read his post and say that assumption was unreasonable. I gave cohendite what I thought was a gentle reminder to be more careful in the future and you are getting into a high dudgeon over it.

Could it be that if this were another topic you would be giving a less than gentle nudge to have a poster follow simple posting etiquette?

Dear bonmot,

Thank you, but just as an aside the notion the Job was patient doesn't hold up with a reading of the book. I had a little fun dissecting it a few years back on OLO. Here is the link if you needed to fill in some time. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2912

As to Anthony we are certainly making progress in understanding the other's position, something that isn't always evident in the usual hurly burly of the debate.