Anthony Cox/cohenite

You called an OLO commenter a "porno man".

As far as I am concerned, an author of an article loses all credibility by resorting to such vile and abusive tactics.

This is typical of your responses to anybody who differs in their opinion to your opinions.

If Graham Young (after receiving a complaint about you calling a commenter a "porno man") permits that type of abuse from one of his contributing authors then that is his (poor) choice.

Unfortunately, this total lack of respect typifies what is happening in our society - of which you are an example.

Quite frankly, your belittling of anyone who dares challenge your opinions (and that is all that they are) then accusing others of exactly what you engage in yourself typifies one who is losing the argument.

I would suggest not at all good if you adopt those same strategies in your legal arguments, but there you go.

Seriously Anthony, I don’t know why you continue to bother. Time and time again you have shown yourself to have no understanding of statistical methods. Time and time again you go cherry-picking to select the result you want. The RSS data set is not the most reliable of temperature indices. It is in fact the odd one out. The only reason there is no significant difference in RSS is because it has an anomalously large value for 1998. Starting the trend at some other period gives a different result. The other three indices all show significant warming over the period (UAH + 0.084oC/decade p=0.0008; HadCRUT4 + 0.048oC/decade p=0.0043; GISS + 0.008oC/decade p<0.0001).

To cap it off you fail to understand what a trade wind is and how they work.

If ignorance of science was an Olympic Sport, Australia would have to consider nominating you to its team.

Welcome agro; the article is NOT about RSS but England's fantasy piece. Given the calibre of this paper and the preceding ones by Trenberth and Vecchi I don't know why you bother.

In any event England now CONCEDES the pause and has tried to vitiate its consequence for AGW by blowing wind around the place. How the Trade winds work, along with the Jetstreams is beside the point [and I can assure you I do understand how they work: http://landshape.org/enm/files/2011/01/walkerarticle.pdf.]

The point is we have 2 prominent AGW scientists saying completely contradictory things about them; and another 2 claiming the winds are sinking the energy in contradiction to OLR and wind data.

You too good to be a troll so how about addressing those issues instead of blathering on about how temperature is [not] rising.

Ozdoc, the 'insult' of "porno man" was a joke early on in the exchange between me and steel about his retro sobriquet SteeleRedux which I'm fairly sure was the nickname of a character in Boogie Nights. If it wasn't it should have been.

In any event I find your faux outrage ridiculous when you haven't a thing to say about the destructiveness, waste and loss of human life which can be sheeted home to AGW and the rotten policies flowing from this rotten ideology.

In other words, you're a hypocrite; and personally I think all the insults under the Sun are not enough to describe the actions of the alarmists.

ozdoc

you are selective in your critisims.

The only coarseness in here was that thrown about by witless.

Where were you when witless disparaged me as having attitudes in common with Hitler. Now that is truely vile. Don't you agree?
Now since we agree 'an author of an article loses all credibility by resorting to such vile and abusive tactics' I think we can safely dismiss the attitudes and arguments of witless.

Witless admitted he had made an inaccurate statement but that it was because he didn't need to be accurate in his analogies. No withdrawal no apology. The moderator has allowed this witlessness to stand.

I say that he was witless. He's never objected nor denied his witlessness.

cheers doc

Ozdoc, you've wasted all our time in an attempt to shut down a debating rival on a false accusation. Perhaps next time you might ask for clarification from the rival before running to the umpire. Steele Redux does appear to relate to a porn star, so the choice of that nom de plume doesn't, at first blush, reflect well on Steele. One wonders what was going through his head. I'd assumed that it was a play on Steele Rudd, but apparently I was naive.

With all due respect GrahamY (and I know it is your site, so you can run it however you like), it looks to me much more like Anthony Cox who has been trying to shut down debate – probably because he is once again exposed for what he is. This pattern of calling other posters names (idiot is a favourite of Anthony’s) is a common tactic in the responses from Anthony when other posters start to pick holes in his arguments.

Anthony, it is hardly worth attempting to explain the science to you. Perhaps I should just take one example of how you got it so wrong. The McVicar et al. 2012 paper assessed the roles of several factors, including wind speed, on evaporation in terrestrial environments across the globe. The trade winds occur predominately at sea in the tropics. So that paper does not provide any information about trade wind speeds. Anyone taking the simplest bit of trouble to check your work could identify this as soon as they looked at McVicar et al.

Even your argument about Vecchi’s work is spurious. Vecchi used data up to 2000. England’s argument about increased trade winds was from data post 2000. The reason they came to different conclusions was because they were looking at different time periods.