I didn't say you did. What I pointed out was that you stated that you: "... no idea how ...." The point is that YOU HAD NO IDEA HOW!
Correct, i have no idea how they have any relevance because they don't. If the main thrust of your arguement is on a Pedantic dictionary definition of words used, then you've got no case to answer for.
JLowe wrote:
"We could throw out the entire scientific method"
You already have: Past tense. You responded to Count Iblis as a layperson would ... argumentative, posturing. If you've got that treasured Masters Degree why can't you step up to the plate and argue as a statistician? I certainly have already drawn a conclusion. I expect everyone else has reached the same one.
Hmm. I have. I have given my research with associated statistical results. I am not argueing here, I am proving scientifically and statistically. If someone ridiculed your analysis ("meaningless") by suggesting that it is using the wrong statistical method, despite the fact that it isn't, don't you think that I should at the very least show him why he is wrong in his arguement?
JLowe wrote:
"Taken out of context."
Nonsense. I quoted you exactly. You wrote that you are lacking in credibility in climatology and no one is going to disagree with you on that point.
I shall repond the same way that you refuse to answer: I do not have a degree in climatology, however am very qualified in statistics (you seem to have amzingly forgotton that on another thread?), which is as we discussed the best qualification to have when analysing temperature data.
In case you didn't know, there are only a handful, like less than 5 people in Australia that have a PhD in climate science, being such an immature science. Almost all climate scientists are physicists, earth scientists or believe it or not?.statisticians. Amazing.
JLowe wrote:
"I never have said that I have completed a PhD"
Yes you did. You wrote (and I quote):
"thru my PhD in statistical analysis of climate science."
Perhaps English is not your primary language but otherwise which part of "my PhD" is incomprehensible to you? It was a gross misrepresentation and you got caught!
Once again, we are talking about pedantic dictionary definitions of english words. If you want to look at the whole quote it was:
"I am currently in the process of making a paper about the results thru my PhD in statistical analysis of climate science."
which if I was making a paper thru my PhD, that would mean that the PhD is not finished. I have never said that I have completed my Phd and I stand by that.
Now, at least I answer the questions that you raise. How about you raising the one's that I have questioned of you:
1. You claim that I have crossed the line into pseudo-science with no proof of this what-so-ever.
2. You said that I manipulated data with no proof what-so-ever of me doing so.
3. 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.
4. Despite my reponses to your pedantic challenges, you refuse to answer mine.
I'm looking forward to the reply from the 4 comments above.
