Speaking of trolls and timewasters, right on cue; why don't you give your life advice to your mates at Sks:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/15/we-need-a-conspiracy-to-save-humanity/

You call me, amongst other things: idiot, pathetic, snob, hysterical, frenchie, fruit loop, rat bag, weasel, nasty, bean bag, stupid, hopeless, angry groupie, etc. etc. etc.

No Anthony, YOU are the cyber bully, YOU ARE THE TROLL.

I am reminded of this exchange:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13019#225111

If Anthony Cox/cohenite wants to use OLO as a platform for the Cox 'brand of science', so be it.

If Cox/cohenite wants to troll the Nova, Watts or his own blog site and re-post his 'brand of science' here, so be it.

However, do real scientists have to reconcile with Cox/cohenite on a site like this when his 'brand of science' has been dealt with numerous times before in more robust forums - not least the literature?

No, we have better things to do, not least living a normal life.

Anthony, you need help ... seriously.

@ Agronomist: Your choice but as they say: Don't feed the trolls.

Yeah, yeah; what about the use of the Chow to detect breaks? Why don't you stop complaining and discuss the science; all I have ever got from you is a few links, mainly to Sks, RC and OM. I've explained why the use of the Chow is appropriate and how it works and all you can say is I "need help". Maybe Lewandowsky will help correct my deviant outlook, eh; is that you mean bonmot?

Dear cohenite,

When you get a spanking the likes of which Agronomist just gave you then the best idea is to withdraw gracefully, not to just keep blathering and thinking that the last post 'wins' the argument because it doesn't.

Truthfully I'm starting to wince reading your posts so time to drop the 'Chow' my friend and live to fight another day.

cohenite, I see you have been hanging out for this post. I am not quite sure how to break this to you, but the Chow test was applied incorrectly in Stockwell and Cox. I am not sure you had anything to do with this, so the statistical explanation to come may be a bit over your head. The Chow test would normally be used in a situation where a known change had occurred and there was a desire to see whether this had an impact. This is why it is used in economics, to test the impact of Government decisions for example. As I pointed out in an earlier post, all the explanations given for the breaks were post hoc. As an aside, the Chow test shouldn’t be used at all and the Wald test used, because it is exact rather than an estimate of the statistic.

What you (or I should say Stockwell, because I am convinced you had nothing to do with it) did was to run multiple Chow tests and look for significance. This is wrong, because it greatly increases the probability of Type I errors. One could correct for such errors by using an approach like Benjamini and Hochberg, but I noticed you did no such thing.

I wouldn’t use a Chow test on this sort of data set, because there is no reason to suppose there has been a sudden change in the behaviour of the climate caused by an outside factor, such as a new Government regulation or a meteorite striking the Earth. All of the data you included had been to some extent influenced by CO2.

In summary, it was an inappropriate method used in an inappropriate way with inappropriate conclusions drawn. I can’t really say fairer than that. Do you understand now why I referred to the paper as bilge? Those flaws might go a fair way to explaining why the manuscript was rejected for publication.

Ciao for now.