cohenite:"you're white noise. At least Agronomist had a go."

And look how much progress he made. As I said, it's pointless arguing against such ardent ignorance. I won't bother.

This whole blog and many of the ones you like to inhabit are all white noise.

Most of what you guys chuck out is like the bull-baiting that Scientologists like to use to provoke their opponents. The cult here is your 'movement' and you just can't see it. None of you are the 'agnostics' that Don likes to believe he himself is, you passionately argue against what is the plain truth.

The universe doesn't lie, but it's sometimes difficult to see. Scientists know this. Conspiracies of 'groupthink' or tampering with data can never last against the reality of the evidence. The truth is tough and will always be there when you have run out of bluster and insults.

And the 'agnostics' can wait until they get the evidence they desperately want for all I care, although I can see that Don aint waiting, he's actively pushing a political line.

We of the "understanding what is really going to happen faith", have one advantage over the church of denial, we only have to wait and it will all come true.
I wonder how far into cataclysmic events we will have to go before denialists admit they were wrong?
It is already too late in my view to repair the damage done to the environment, with positive feed back forcing the change so all these arguments are of little value now.
I think that some of the people that are posting to this type of thread are getting increasingly shriller as they realise how untenable their position is.

"And look how much progress he made."

Agronomist made no progress because he was wrong; read the link and the last 2 comments:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14089&page=0

Read what Agronomist says and how I respond.

He was wrong.

Again, I concede I'm no statistician but I learn enough to make meaningful contributions to the papers; my main forte is research and finishing off the prose.

I always read and consider what the pro-AGW believers say if it has to do with the science; I ignore the patronising, the appeals to authority and the ridiculous 'consensus' argument.

I practice law where there are endless qualifications, checks and balances and appeal processes; it amazes me that a section of science, climate science, should wish to remove itself from scientific checks and balances and establish a citadel whereby the people, the public, who pay the wages of the scientists and who will have to bear the brunt of the policies based on the climate science, are told they are not good enough to be replied to because they would not understand.

What insufferable arrogance!

Are you on the public purse Bugs?

If so, tell me how I got it wrong in discussion with Agronomist.

cohenite,

Let's hear from Agronomist how you got it wrong:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14089&page=0#244043

His summary at the end of the post is telling in itself:

"In summary, it was an inappropriate method used in and 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 paper was rejected for publication."

I'm fascinated by your constant complaint of condescension, etc...have you ever studied you own rhetoric, which would have to some of the rudest, most discourteous and insulting in debates. You show no respect - and then complain when you treated with disdain.

Btw, here's Lord Monckton on his "triumph" in Doha.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/07/monckton-on-his-smashing-u-n-wall-of-silence-on-lack-of-warming-and-censure

(apparently employing the services of Microsoft Excel is that latest cutting-edge technology for non-scientists to debunk AGW)

This guy is lauded figure amongst "skeptics"...why do we not take you seriously?

Poirot I have shown you where Agronomist got it wrong and you still persist; for the benefit of anyone who is looking and marvelling at your inability to undestand here's what I said to Agronomist:

"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."

So, that's it; Agronomist made 3 substantive criticisms of the use of the Chow statistical test in the paper; they were where the break is known, it was; the time of the break, which was also known, and 3rdly misunderstanding the nature of type 1 errors.

So, that's it Poirot; you either understand that and are lying about it, or you are stupid.

Poirot,

Still struggling with that logic thingy I see. To show me that 16yrs is a short-term trend, you provide links to a page that doesn't talk about trends (short or long) and doesn't even use the word trend! Huh?

Here is what other warmists have said about periods of 15yrs or so:

Phil Jones (head of the CRU and member of the 'Hockey Team'):
"‘Bottom line: the ‘no upward trend’ has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’"
NOAA: "The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

Of course both have now decanted and say we need longer trends, thus proving a climate law of my own design being "the length of a non-warming trend required to disprove the models is equal to the length of the current trend PLUS 1 year".

Actually, in the hands of the warmists, nothing disproves the hypothesis. To their mind, drought proves AGW. But so do floods. Snow storms prove AGW. But so does lack of snow. A warming trend proves it but a lack of warming trend still proves it. In the same way as no evidence will ever disprove the existence of God to a Southern Baptist, no evidence will ever disprove AGW to a devout warmist.