Which part? You ask, cohenite. I think it starts about halfway through the author list and doesn’t get much better from there.

Figure 1b is a great example of how your Chow test can throw up false positives, and is inappropriate. Yes, I mean regression. The regression along the entirely of the series does not appear significantly different from the regression before your ‘break’, and you yourself admit that the different regression after the break is likely due to ‘anomalously high rainfall’ in a small number of years. So, basically it will definitely find ‘breaks’ (with a high significance! Or low R2, whatever), however you have not done a test for how many data points are affecting that particular change. This could be achieved by a Monte Carlo type test where datapoints are randomly removed from the analysis and the whole analysis repeated in iterations, probably about 10,000 or more, which should give you an estimate of which years are giving you skewed results and how many.

But we could wax lyricical for hours about the finer points of a rejected manuscript that was never published, but that would get us exactly nowhere. It’s just white noise and that’s all you are. And you can say “You’re wrong!” all you like, but the fact is you had a chance for this piece to have some sort of credibility 3 years ago and you squibbed it.

Apart from the fact that Graham Chapman’s King Arthur cut off the Black Knight’s limbs in a movie, I rather like spindocs simile (not analogy) of picturing the ‘skeptics’ as Rowan Atkinson s character, Blackadder. Anyone who actually watched the TV show knows what happened to him at the end of each series...
This is what I will forever picture as ‘cohenite syndrome’, being somewhat clueless and not having any idea about why. And then you make it about personalities, because that’s all you can do. If your being convinced of a scientific point of view rests on someone elses personality and your reaction to it, then you truly are the eunuch at the banquet.

Ah, I’m being stalked by, I suppose, another snout on the public purse, qanda, who links to Tamino. Regular at Tamino, Bernard J says:

“If you want to blame an oscillating, heat-shifting phenomenon wholely and solely for increased planetary warming, and simultaneously exonerate carbon dioxide and its known ‘greenhouse’ properties, you need to explain both how ENSO and other such phenomena cause a net increase in global temperature, and why the physics of infrared absorption by ‘greenhouse’ gases don’t result in any planetary warming.”

I presume this is what qanda is referring to but who knows since these trolls merely link and link.

Bernard is wrong; upwelling and consequent ENSO oscillation is quite capable of explaining temperature trend:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/20/el-nino-southern-oscillation-myth-3-enso-has-no-trend-and-cannot-contribute-to-long-term-warming/

The reason why ENSO can produce trend is because it has been asymmetrical:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010JCLI3592.1

What this means is that the El Nino phase of ENSO which produces warm global conditions is warmer and lasts longer than the cool La Nina phase cools.

This asymmetry was a feature of the 20thC where in addition there were 2 El Nino phases and only one La Nina phase.

That is sufficient to explain the temperature trend over the 20thC.

ENSO asymmetry is a proxy for increased solar activity which increased from 1850; solar is the only way the oceans can be warmed since IR, which CO2 affects, cannot penetrate the ocean surface.

Really, there is no need for AGW at all to explain the climate of the 20thC; it can be explained by reference to natural processes.

Bugsy; your arrogance is only exceeded by the nonsense you write; Monte Carlo sampling is used where the data cannot give an exact result; the temperature data used with the Chow was exact in that it was known there was a temperature break; the Chow was used to compare the significance of the break[s] with regression. In addition, something you ignore is the strong correlation with the breaks and actual physical climatic events; these breaks contradict AGW. That is what the Chow confirmed and why the paper was not published.

cohenite,

"Ah, I'm being stalked by, I suppose, another snout on the public purse..."

The "stalking" chestnut is fast becoming a handy shield from criticism - someone points out a few home truths, and the person criticised yells "I'm being stalked!"

Back to reality.

I have to admire you, cohenite. In the face of much criticism from people actually trained in the disciplines you manage to dismiss them all with so much confidence. (Very black Knight indeed)

But then we have posts like this from Prompete:

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

Adulation like that is liable to turn someone's head. That cohenite is repeatedly relieved of the delusion that he knows what he's talking about by those who do know what they're talking about, cannot compete with his popularity amongst "skeptics"...he's probably nearing pop-star status on the blogs which he frequents.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/el-nino-southern-oscillation.htm

cohenite writes - "...solar is the only way the oceans can be warmed..."

Well that's not quite true mate. Geothermal heat (heat extra to solar) is a significant driver of ocean temps, hence ENSO events, climate variation, weather, and it seriously needs greater consideration in the GW debate.

For what it's worth, Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_gradient#Heat_flow

"Heat flows constantly from its sources within the Earth to the surface. Total heat loss from the earth is 44.2 TW (4.42 × 1013 watts).[12] Mean heat flow is 65 mW/m2 over continental crust and 101 mW/m2 over oceanic crust.[12] This is approximately 1/10 watt/square meter on average, (about 1/10,000 of solar irradiation,) but is much more concentrated in areas where thermal energy is transported toward the crust by convection such as along mid-ocean ridges and mantle plumes.[13] The Earth's crust effectively acts as a thick insulating blanket which must be pierced by fluid conduits (of magma, water or other) in order to release the heat underneath. More of the heat in the Earth is lost through plate tectonics, by mantle upwelling associated with mid-ocean ridges. The final major mode of heat loss is by conduction through the lithosphere, the majority of which occurs in the oceans due to the crust there being much thinner and younger than under the continents.[12][14]"

And,

"The heat of the Earth is replenished by radioactive decay at a rate of 30 TW.[15] The global geothermal flow rates are more than twice the rate of human energy consumption from all primary sources."

And,

http://marinebio.org/oceans/temperature.asp#.UODqUFsRWmw
"...the state of this thermohaline circulation, sometimes called the global conveyor belt, can have an enormous impact on the climate of our planet."

Go think about those facts folks.

If anyone's going to solve global temperature anomaly puzzles, it's not going to be by way of people sticking their heads in the clouds and calling CO2 a polutant, but by geologists, oceanologists and astro physicists, with feet firmly planted on the ground in established sciences.

And in my opinion cohenite gets closer to the truth than most of them.

My insurance premiums doubled and then doubled again in just the last five years, courtesy of one in one hundred record flood events that occurred in three consecutive years.
And I live on a mountain.
Noah would need to build another ark, if flood events were ever to threaten my house.
Average wind speeds have risen, [global convection,] and as such, contributed to the unprecedented fire storm that that wiped out Victorian friends and relatives; and or, rendered them homeless.
Ditto the recent record and historically huge cyclone, that decimated so much of northern Queensland!
Now, I can't say with irrefutable science backing me, that AGW is implicated/responsible, or even real!
But something is causing the increasing savagery/frequency of these "natural" disasters and the unprecedented ice melts!
What can or should we do? Just so we can say to the Grandkids, I played a positive part in ensuring your future, rather than trying to mortgage it out of existence.
We should replace our aging coal-fired power stations with relatively safe carbon free, thorium nuclear ones.
They might cost less, than what we currently shell out for traditional coal fired ones.
So, the cost of producing power could be as low as, 2 cents per Kilowatt hour!
Insurance? I'm already paying in spades for climate change caused outcomes!?
Done extremely locally to avoid transmission losses of around 50%; and thereby removing the cost of maintaining a huge white elephant like the national grid; retail energy costs could come way down!
Especially if you factor in the price of carbon, and its absence in the above proposal.
And as advocated elsewhere, we should be converting all our waste into household or transport energy, instead of sending it skywards as extremely harmful methane.
None of the above suggestions would harm our economy; but rather, quite massively improve it and the veritable plethora of unprecedented wealth and job creation opportunities, that we could create; if we but stopped fervently mouthing, that the govt has no business in business, and or, shouldn't be in the business of picking/investing in winners!
Rhrosty.

Bugsy and Co,

It is a great compliment to be mimicked, please feel free to use someone else’s original thoughts; at some stage it would be nice to see you create some original thoughts of your own? But that takes intellect not education.

By the way, it was “Eunuch at the Orgy” by Raymond Tallis, not Eunuch at the banquet. You would enjoy his work as it’s all about the “socialization of science”. You would feel right at home.

Tallis observes “that for many trained in the humanities; the standards of discussion routine in science are alien. To them, science seems so remote that ignorance hardly seems ignorance at all”.

“Humanities academia is naturally unhappy to recognize the centrality of mathematicisation of nature to our culture, to be reminded of the importance of the unattainably different level of rigor and sophistication prevailing in subjects they don’t understand”.

Whoo hooo, he’s got your number.

“Like the eunuch at the orgy who was always first with the gossip, but being forced to realize that he doesn’t really know what’s going on, his knowledge is not real and that far from being the centre of things, he is forever on the margin”. So how is it out there on the margin?

Sooner or later you will need to realize that skeptics are not your enemies; we are your foils, opponents or challengers to your views. We don’t HAVE to agree with you to stimulate your argument. If your argument fails to convince, that is no excuse for abuse or vilification but it does present a case for you to revise your case in accordance with either its success or its failure.

The obsession with winning the unwinnable is the key weakness in your case, because we see the obsessiveness and intuitively sense it is just that, an obsession not science