Ha! csteele, you made my day..."And is mass-debating Cox(s) something one should be doing in public?"

Yes, Cohenite, it's all about faith. Never give up.

As for the rest of your post, I agree to disagree with you, in general.

Hoping you have faith in your air conditioner, I remain

Bazz. well said!

And if you should think it possible that you might lose faith in your air conditioner, cohenite,

then you may wish to either study this website at your earliest convenience or else save the link for later, sort of like a bottle of scotch in the cupboard. Just in case you need it for medicinal purposes.

http://www.nas-sites.org/climatemodeling/

cohenite wrote:

“No, it is 13 pages long:”

I find it hard to believe you would be so ignorant not to know the difference between a manuscript and a published paper. The published paper is 3 pages long.

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L08706, 3 PP., 2009
doi:10.1029/2009GL037810

As for the Stockwell and Cox paper, in your previous post you claimed the predictions were based on the known behaviour of the sun and physical properties of atmospheric gasses. When I pointed out, with a quote from the paper, that was not true, you now state the predictions were based on extrapolation of some lines drawn through the data. Have you changed your mind in less than a day about the methodology? Or have you had trouble grasping the arguments in the paper? I know it is a pile of rubbish and badly presented, but I didn’t find it too hard to work out the central argument. I find it staggering that your name was on the paper, given you can’t seem to work out what it was about. What part of Stockwell and Cox did you actually contribute to?

Perhaps I should not be surprised. You write one thing here and when it is pointed out to be wrong, you suddenly claim you wrote something else entirely. You first claimed Easterling and Wehner “assumes a symmetrical oscillation around a neutral mean with any overall trend above that attributable to AGW” I pointed out that was not correct in that this was not an assumption made by Easterling and Wehner, but a result from their analysis. You then claimed “On that assumption about natural variability Easterling then go on and declare that any trend must be due to AGW forcing”. Again I have pointed out this is incorrect. This was a result from their analysis, not an assumption. You are now claiming that you never said it was an assumption.

You are not related to Humpty Dumpty are you?

The Easterling paper/manuscript I linked to and was discussing was the 13 page version. Neither the version I linked to or the Letter version are peer reviewed, did you know that; so I'll prefer the longer version which reveals the absurdism of the paradigm. Anyway you changed the goal posts and switched to the 3 page version. And you have the hide to be arrogant about your tactic and your misunderstanding of what Easterling has said.

You don't understand Stockwell; that is evident. You say this:

"in your previous post you claimed the predictions were based on the known behaviour of the sun and physical properties of atmospheric gasses"

I did no such thing; the paper is about "regime shifts" in the climate which in turn are associated with oceanic upwelling variations, and ENSO and PDO phase shift; none of which are controversial. Neither is the statistical method, a Chow test, which is used in the paper to isolate breaks in the data.

None of this is controversial, yet you cherry pick the prediction graph, Figure 3, which is an addendum to the main point of the paper and dismiss it, on what grounds?

Do you even know the difference between a Chow test and a linear regression? Care to explain?

Humpty Dumpty eh? An appropriate insult since dealing with you is like reading nursery rhymes. A genuine scientist would have been interested in Figures 1 and 2 which show the achieved breaks in Australia and globally; you are obviously not a scientist.