Yes, well cohenite, I don't pretend I have the expertise of a climate scientist (like you do, for instance) so I link to scientists who do possess it. You never know what you might turn up when someone with real knowledge examines papers...take this for instance - the Stockwell and Cox paper being given the once over http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/step-3/

As for your reference that Raypierre Humbert states that it's "conceivable" that temperature rose as fast as today - so what? The reality is that it's highly unlikely.

"....Marcott simply smoothed away all the nasty warm periods in the past..."

I can understand why a "skeptic" like yourself would make that accusation. It's the sort of bunkum that turns up regularly when real scientists deconstruct denialist blather (like Watts' yellow line).....you guys think that if it's par for the course in denier-land, then everyone must do it.

Wrong.....

Oh yes Poirot; the step has been vindicated by many people:

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/2011-09.pdf

You won't bother reading let alone understand McKitrick's paper on the 1976 'step', so I will explain where Tamino went wrong. Tamino agrees the step statistical analysis is valid but then pulls a rabbit out of a hat and announces the linear trend is better at representing AGW than the step model, thus contradicting his initial statement that AGW isn’t based on a linear temperature trend.

Anyway, statistical analysis of physical processes is only valid if it is correlated with physical causes. In respect of steps in temperature trend, there is a multitude of papers which have statistically documented the climate shift and consequent step in temperature in 1976, including Breusch and Vahid, who did the statistical work for Garnaut’s reports, Tsonis and Swanson, Seidel, Lindzen, Bratcher, McKitrick etc, all with peer reviewed papers, and who have correlated that step with actual physical process.

That is the key and is why AGW science has gone down the rabbit hole.

Poirot, even amateur 'sceptics' can question real scientists at sites like Real Climate, Open Mind, whatever.

The challenge for people like Anthony Cox is to do just that - they won't and you know why.

Dear JKJ,

Early in our discussion I wrote the following;

“Perhaps we should seek someone who we can agree would give a fair adjudication on transgressions otherwise it will be open to either of us picking up the bat and ball and declaring ourselves a winner.”

Yet in good faith I agreed to proceed without a judge.

It is a deep failing of mine that I constantly ignore my prescient guardian angel.

I will be here if you ever want to return with the bat and ball.

However even if you don't I hope you now have a far greater appreciation of what constitutes a logical fallacy, I know I do.

Hi qanda - yes, the opportunity is always there to ask questions. We're indebted to scientists who make themselves accessible : )

"We're indebted to scientists who make themselves accessible : )"

And who would that be, Karoly:

http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2013/03/comedy-s-hot-new-duo-manne-and-karoly

And what about that honest scientific broker Hansen:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/02/science/james-e-hansen-retiring-from-nasa-to-fight-global-warming.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

These guys are not scientists, they are activists and their message is tainted by that purpose; but then, you don't care Poirot because you are an activist too.