Thanks Poirot, I think Claire Krause summed it up pretty well:

>> despite the online opinions of some individuals, at least the scientific findings are being noticed by places where there can be a push for action to address climate change. (What's the bet on Mr Abbott having a 'revelation moment' when AR5 is released?)

It may feel like slow, baby steps forward, but the scientific puzzle-pieces that are building the climate change picture are coming together, and the arguments of vocal individuals who feel threatened by the scientific evidence seem to be becoming more like school yard name calling than informed debate. <<

Anyway, looks like Mr Cox is on to something: open web-publishing of material that's been written by a mate (I mean peer) and rejected (if at all it was submitted) by the relevant journal (Environmental Research Letters) on a paper that he wants to critique here ... on OLO for Pete's sake. It really does sound like Mr Cox is getting more shill. One could be forgiven for thinking Cohenite (I mean Mr Cox) is full of himself, and full of it.

Wow Cohenite, you are a bit smug matey. All the scientific mumbo jumbo, all the links and all the gobbledegook about regression. Mate this year was not any different and when the ABC and then you blokes bombard me with OH YES IT IS like some music hall turn I am not only not intimidated but even surer of myself.

The European have come a gutser with their emissions trading scheme and the Chinese do not even notice us.

All it needs is for Prime Minister Tony Abbott to cut all climate science (Something invented a few years ago)funding and watch you bludgers try and frighten the punters with some new nonsense.

Year 2k nonsense and scientists giving us Thalidomide you are taking a lend of us. Goodbye!

JBowyer....er, cohenite's on your side....

Regarding Tony and his ability to "cut climate science".

Things seem to have a moved on a bit.

http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/2013/04/25/how-tony-abbott-killed-the-australian-climate-sceptic-movement-and-schooled-them-in-realpolitik/

Really, you gotta laugh ... out loud!

Poirot I think Mr Bowyer was speaking to Q&A who has the monopoly on smugness around here.

You can't win though, when you go to the trouble of understanding the gross defects in AGW 'science', you get accused of "gobbledegook".

It's not my fault that F&R is a dog's breakfast that proves nothing other than statistics can prove anything.

When Abbott revealed his true feelings about AGW, that it is "crap", the luuvies got on his case; I'm sure he has pulled his head in and moderated his descriptions; but I'm confident he knows AGW is a plaything of the eco-nuts, commies and ivory-tower smarties.

Hunt is the worry.

Oh, I don't know, cohenite, he did refer to your abundance of "links" from the previous post.

My theory is he saw references to equations and attempts at actual science, and immediately fell back to an ideological stance that dictates that anybody who does that must be a scammer. You're one of the few in blog comments who tries to argue the science before you invoke the "fraud" - as opposed to merely invoking the "fraud".

I'm wondering about a new strategy to control science funding and/or communication in North America.

Canada is a case in point:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2013/03/scientific-freedom-canada

Mutterings in the US.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/04/us-lawmaker-proposes-new-criteri-1.html