Spindoc, you are so caught up in your own rhetoric, that you fail to understand why people like me are here.

I am not here to convince you. Far from it, I realised a long time ago that NOTHING will do that. The ‘skeptic’ movement is not a scientific one. That is clear, as you have lawyers and political commenters etc. arguing against the science. The story isn’t coherent even within the ‘movement’, there are many viewpoints that have yet to be settled before you guys will make any sort of headway:
-Global warming doesn’t exist
-Global warming clearly exists, but AGW doesn’t exist
-The scientists are in some sort of conspiracy to maintain the illusion that AGW exists, whether it be by maintaining funding from the bureaucrats that stand to make money, or by some sort of unskeptical ‘groupthink’ within their ranks.
-Maybe AGW does exist, but there’s nothing we can do about it (I personally think this is the closest, but only because the political will necessary is unlikely to be mustered because even the ignorant get to vote and even become party leaders).

No, I am not here to disabuse you of your conspiratorial illusions. I am here for entertainment. Without us, what would you guys do? Sit around in a big circle jerk congratulating each other for how good you can understand science and say things like “why don’t the scientists realise that the Sun warms the Earth”?
There’s already plenty of other websites for that.

Please just don't get depressed when things don't turn out the way you think they are. I know how you guys ramp up the rhetoric when stuff doesn't go your way.

Oh and cohenite, no. You put in the breaks, and the ones you found are just the ones that gave you the biggest difference. I’ll say it again, R2 is NOT a measure of ‘significance’. I can see I will get nowhere with this, so I’ll stop.
Only one last comment: in science communication there is a general rule that for every formula or equation you present, you will lose half your audience. What is the purpose of using so many equations in a post? It’s not to communicate, that much I can see. I reckon it’s to shut down opposition and convince your cheersquad that you know your stuff. “What, you can’t understand the formulae I present? You clearly don’t know as much as me. Show me where I'm wrong, otherwise I'm cleverer”. The true mark of a BBB artist.

Bugsy, you say you are not here to convince us.

Yes, of course we already knew that silly.

Isn’t that the whole thrust of my case? It is not us that need convincing it is YOU. Your science has already failed to convince those who once supported you, now you are all left holding can!

Since your support base crumbled your insecurity and self doubt is devouring you. Panic has set in, your frustration and vexation has gone through the roof, you trawl through the old, tired pseudo-science that has already been rejected by YOUR OWN SIDE and yet, you still keep hammering us with it. You now know you’ve been “had” on AGW and are investing enormous emotional capital on convincing yourself of that final lie, “I am RIGHT, aren’t I? Aren’t I? Aren’t I?

Thus you exhaust all that has led you to where you are and you finally succumb to the “cohenite syndrome”.

That syndrome entirely predicts your current demeanor; you should have read it properly.

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

Posted by spindoc, Sunday, 30 December 2012 3:30:28 PM

As the syndrome predicts, you will be forced to defend the indefensible by regurgitating that which has already failed, your justifications will be challenged, found wanting and your list will rapidly shrink along with your credibility.

The “hissy fits” in your last two posts tell us everything we need to know. You now get don’t you? You don’t like it, you don’t know how you got here, you thought you were smart enough to avoid this, you feel duped and you are getting very, very angry.

An interesting aspect of the cohenite syndrome I forgot to mention is the tendency for afflicted warmers to go into denial. Thus we see you still keep angrily flogging your failed science? Fascinating, so who is the denier?

Mmmmm look! Another bowl of pseudo- science. “More please sir!”

Sorry spindoc,

Not only did you get your pop culture wrong, you also attributed it exactly to the wrong side.

As it happens (and we should extend our gratitude your way for coming up with the analogy) the Black Knight perfectly describes each "skeptic" argument individually and the whole denialist movement collectively.

The Black Knight staunchly refused to acknowledge the physical (empirical) evidence that he was fast being reduced to a torso and a head. I'm sure if he'd had a lawyer on hand to reinforce his misconceptions with a few unintelligible equations, his swagger would have been even greater.

(I don't think your "cohenite syndrome" is gonna be a goer - at least not in the way you intended for it...oh, well back to the drawing board on that one)

Bugsy, you make it sound as though the paper created the breaks; here is some of the literature which deals with the breaks:

http://cbe.anu.edu.au/research/papers/pdf/wp495.pdf

http://www.agu.org/journals/ABS/2002/2002GL015191.shtml

http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/Douglass_Knox_pla373aug31.pdf

https://pantherfile.uwm.edu/kswanson/www/publications/2008GL037022_all.pdf

http://www.beringclimate.noaa.gov/regimes/Regime_shift_algorithm.pdf

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/foci/publications/2008/overN667.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079661100000331

And so on; there are literally dozens of papers which deal with the climate shifts around 1976 and from 1998 onwards; the breaks had been well and truly noted before the paper. I repeat the purpose of the paper was uncontroversial: to statistically verify those breaks against the regression which is the basis of AGW and to make a prediction about future temperature on the basis of the statistical result. The paper did not put the breaks in.

By saying R2 does not measure the “significance” you are playing with semantics; R2 measures how well one variable can predict another in 2 sets of data; if the R2 is high, or significant, then the predictive value of the determining variable, CO2 in this instance is also high; the Chow proves the breaks are statistically more significant in predicting temperature over the period from 1910 then CO2 as expressed in a linear regression; read Table 1 from the paper; address that instead of garbling on about R2 characteristics.

Anyway, by rejecting the paper you are rejecting this large body of established science; but that’s the heart of AGW as a religion; reject the unfaithful, the contrary and stick to the orthodox and the creed.

You’re a not a scientist bugs, you’re a disciple.

And Bugs, great critique of the critique of Foster I put up; it’s wrong because it’s too complicated and people are too stupid to understand it!? Really, that’s your best? You and the rest of the ‘scientists’ are going to be lonely chaps when this AGW farce ends.

Spindoc; I expect a cheque every month from the royalties which will flood in from your marketing of the “cohenite syndrome”!

BINGO! There's the "I'm cleverer than you" knockout punch from cohenite, with a "you think people are stupid" uppercut flourish.

That was the purpose of putting up so many equations wasn't it? You didn't honestly expect a bunch of climate scientists flocking to this site to have a look at them did you? Seriously?

And so your paper is not only 'uncontroversial', it's also trivial and makes no substantial contribution to the field because it's just a statistical confirmation of what we already know? But it contradicts AGW (uncontroversialy), so it isn't published. That's some narrative. Be good for book I reckon, you working on one? It seemed to work for Plimer, not so much for Lawson.

Spindoc's lost in a world of his own making. Must be warm and comfy in there...

See yas.