Morgan,
It looks as though you have lost the argument fair and square.
You first attempt to discredit me, unsuccessfully with no proof. You claim that I have crossed the line into pseudo-science with no proof of this what-so-ever. Furthermore when questioned on your comment you refuse to reply. It is quite obvious to me and to all reading that you simply made up this judgment solely to appease your point of view.
You said that I manipulated data with no proof what-so-ever of me doing so. Once again, your unsubstantiated claim is wrong. You don't have a good track record here do you?
You challenged me to provide details of my academic record, because you had serious doubt of it, quite possibly because my results disagreed with your thought pattern. You lost this challenge as well.
I am expecting 3 apologies from you for being terribly wrong and offensive. What is quite funny is of your claim of me being wrong, however the opposite seems to have occurred.
It is quite clear, that you have a problem with the results that I am finding. Like I said previously, my results actually agree with some previous research done by the ABM and CSIRO in regards to maximum and minimum data. But when you dig a little deeper, the conclusions drawn from them do not.
I have asked you to find any sort of evidence that goes against what I have said on my blog and you have found none. Absolutely none.
Thereby, the only form of attack that you are left with is character assignation. Hardly great science. In fact, such an argumentive ploy is to be frowned on. I feel sorry for you that you have to stoop so low to attempt to discredit the research that I have done.
I still ask you again. Can you tell me of a paper that analyses Australian data to the extent as that what was written above? The truth of the answer is that you can't. You claim that I have discredited myself, because by asking you it looks as though I have not done research in this area. But the fact of the matter is that I have, and both you and I know that there has not been statistical analysis done on Australian temperatures to this extent. Almost all research is done solely on maximum and minimum temperatures.
Does it bother you that the statistical analysis done on my blog, yes just a blog, is more in depth than any statistical temperature analysis done in peer-reviewed journal papers? It obviously does.
You can't prove me wrong, because my analysis has exceeded that done before. We are after all, all trying to find the truth aren't we? Irrespective of what it is?
So once again, I am expecting 3 apologies from you. Or are you not man enough to give them?
