I have been given data from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. I analysed it, and that is what I found. I am currently in the process of making a paper about the results thru my PhD in statistical analysis of climate science. I am just telling you of what I have found.
I ask you again, please point me in the direction of a journal peer-reviewed paper about the analysis of trends in ground temperature in Australia that one can replicate. Please, please do this.
Also, please tell me how I have "crossed the line".
You claim that I am now Pseudo-Science? Let me clarify what pseudo-science actually means, because I am sure you either do not understand or are looking at mirrors:
"A pseudoscience is any body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method"
Exactly what I classified you as in the previous post. Telling someone that they are full of bs, only because they have results that conflict with your point of view, without any evidence to back your own statement up.
Please explain to me how I have not followed the correct scientific method, otherwise, take back your comments.
It is of deep concern that it has got to this. I would have hoped that we would have a critical debate about the results and method. I would have hoped that you would suggest that my results are not correct because I analysed them in a wrong way, used the wrong method, or perhaps even received my data from an unreliable source. But, I?m afraid, all I am getting from you is character assassination. Such a shame. Hardly science.
