JLo wrote:
(sorry couldn't resist the pun on your name)
"I think you misread what statisticians do. We are given data, we analyse it and send it back."
Granted. But you've gone one step further. You've drawn conclusions in a field of expertise in which you have no expertise and that is the problem.
Do you think you could do that given data from a collision of pions and electrons? Or tree rings and supernovae explosions?
My point is that you have crossed the line from science to pseudo-science. Had you received the data from a climatologist, performed the analysis requested, and passed it back again for conclusions to be drawn I highly doubt those conclusions would have been the same. And if you disagree why haven't you co-published with someone with expertise in the field?
You seem to think, it appears to me, that your numbers can prove a conclusion that violates physics. That we can warm the oceans but Oz is unaffected. That we can prove general warming of the entire planet but Oz is unaffected.
It is far more likely you are incorrect than that essentially everyone with a PhD in climatology has had one stubby to many.
