Right, good to see your 4 days research was so productive Agronomist.

Yeah, David is a very good statistician but I find I only need my undergraduate training to see the loopholes in AGW science.

You don't understand the paper. You say this:

"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."

What would you describe the 1976 climate shift and the 1998 super El Nino? You don't call those known changes? And they are a priori not post hoc!

And this:

"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."

That is just crap; the Chow is used iteratively in Stockwell along a stream of data where the breaks are known to test whether the known breaks were optimal; they were to a 95% CL.

And I quite frankly am mystified by your focus on type 1 errors or rejecting the null hypothesis of no effect when it should be accepted. Stockwell didn't do that; the breaks were accepted.