Cont’d

So what is left? The only remnants of this once fine market are the Dominicans. The sect created to deal with the loss of credibility of the Jesuits, the bunnies, the vulnerable, the lazy, the ideologues and pseudo-scientists; the bloggers!

So to “condensation”: The “cohenite syndrome”, which exposes the remnants of AGW to distillation, the process of fewer promoting less. As the “carrier” through challenge boils away the essence of the warmers case it is exposed to public scrutiny and found wanting. The residual “cause” cannot stand scrutiny. The fewer the points of the cause, the more we see the “less” as tired, outdated, obsolete and prejudicial excuses, the more the public sees the flawed causes and the frailty.

The “green investment” market has collapsed, political support has collapsed, international developed nations support has collapsed, public support has collapsed, the Un IPCC case has again been diluted, opportunist industries are threatening to remove themselves from the market, academia offers more of the same unfulfilled predictions, legislative decisions are facing repeal, governments are returning to economically and politically sustainable coal, gas and nuclear energy production.

What does this leave us with? It leaves us with the bloggers, some of the media, some politicians and some of academia. All these are characterized by the need to sustain personal credibility. Nothing to do with science, just “Please God, let me be right”

The “cohenite syndrome” is all about exposing the warmers to credibility, to exposing their ever diminishing list of justification for their views.

That is why the criteria set by Don Aitkin and cohenite are so pertinent, they expose the need for and manifestation of bile, abuse, vilification, tagging and “Brand Imaging” to what they really are, a futile, adolescent response to reality. Their repeated mantra of “my link to someone else’s opinion is better then yours”.

This market once depended upon critical mass to sustain itself. Now it follows the Law of the Inverse Square. For every unit of energy the warmers input, the results are reduced by a factor of four.

Bugsy/Poirot, I love you.

I love you because you are so predictable. I love you because you are the best support the skeptics have. I love you because you cannot understand what is happening. I love you because you are bereft of anything new. I love you because you are ones of the abandoned. I love you because you are so vulnerable, malleable and so determined to defend the indefensible. I love you because you refuse to confront that which hurts you. I love you because you feel the pain of being wrong. I love you because every time someone says you are a *&^%$, you respond by being one.

I doubt anyone fails to understand the significance of Black Adder. It’s folklore. You on the other hand cannot deal with the analogy, you try to distort it and shoot the messenger whilst failing to address the meaning.

Just how YOU is that?

How utterly appropriate that your response to the Black Adder analogy is exactly the same as your response to anything that confronts your perspective? No debate, no response, no intellectual foil, just good old fashioned down the side, outside the issues, can’t be bothered triviality.

You are not victims of the “cohenite syndrome”, you are the best examples we have of it.

Just thought I‘d mention real science. According to Professor Nicholas Mee of physics research at CERN. He states that of the 86 Feynman diagrams tested so far, there are NO anomalies, NO inconsistencies, NO variables and NO contradictions. All physics hypotheses have been tested to an extraordinary level of proof of between 10 to the power of 24 and 10 to the power of 34.

Now that my friend is real science.

Just wondering how your scientific (sic) “predictions” are going?

Please keep up the good work and thanks.

LorraLuv.

spindoc,

The point is, Mr Analogy, that you got it wrong.

It wasn't Blackadder - it was the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

He guarded a "bridge" which was a short plank of wood (I wonder whose cranium he procured that from?)

If you're going to present earth-shattering analogies, as Bugsy pointed out, at least get your pop culture straight.

As for your "cohenite syndrome" - I'd be wary of your "cleverness" backfiring big time.

"Cohenite Syndrome" may well become a byword for denialism.

(PS - I love you too :)

Spindoc.
I too have read with increasing respect the determination, accuracy and relevance of Cohenite. Following and comparing the respective links, Cohenites' grasp of the breadth of the science is truly worthy. Such pleasure I have had in following each ripost, worthy of a fencing master.

Your description of the 'Cohenite syndrome' is both insightful and replete with wicked wit. With your permission I will be using it in the future. I just know I can work it into a conversation as required. along with 'jumping the shark', the 'Cohenite Syndrome' will now be an essential part of my lexicon. :)).

Your post was an absolute pleasure to read! Thank you.

This is the paper Bugs is commenting on:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0907.1650v3.pdf

Now, looking at Figure 1B; this deals with the Australian rainfall record from 1910.

Typically this rainfall is shown by a regression trend as the green line in the graph indicates. However climate data is rarely linear [CO2 diffusion from ocean to atmosphere and vice-versa via Henry’s Law would be one exception] and the point of using the Chow test to show non-linear breaks was to interpret the rainfall data in a way correlated to what was happening in the climate and to the highest statistical significance.

The finding of a break in the rainfall data at 1982 had a higher statistical significance than the regression trend; as noted in the Results section of the paper:

“Regarding the precipitation series, a single break-date at 1982 (Figure
1b) significantly improves the fit (p = 0:02) as indicated by the increase
in R2 from 0.041 to 0.164 (Table 1). The trend in the segment before the
break is not significant (p = 0:88), but a decline in precipitation after the
break is significant (p = 0:03), most probably due to the anomalously high
rainfall in the years after 1978.”

Bugs says this about Figure 1B:

“This was most clearly evident in Figure 1b, where the long term trend doesn't seem to be much different to the first trend before the 'break'. Looking at the graph, this 'break' is obviously caused by a only couple of years data and doesn't affect the longer term trend. The Chow test is clearly inappropriate for this type of data, as agronomist said.”

Seriously Bugs, you're a scientist? If by the “long-term trend” you mean the regression, its significance is far inferior to the Chow, R2 0.041 compared to 0.164; in addition, the comparison is not between the blue and green lines before the break but between the 2 blue lines before and after the break.

Spindoc says:

“For every unit of energy the warmers input, the results are reduced by a factor of four.’

Very true, the alarmists detract from the world.

Out of the frying pan and into the fire?

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/step-3/

Mr Cox's incursion: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/step-3/#comment-58730

Seems he's found a loving home at OLO, no surprise.