JLowe wrote:
"1. You claim that I have crossed the line into pseudo-science with no proof of this what-so-ever."

Where have you posted the actual statistical methods used?

Where have you posted the validation that the data is representative?

Where have you posted discrepancies between your methodology and that accepted in climatology?

Where have you posted an explanation of why and how you results differ from those of CSIRO and NASA?

Where have you posted citations to prior art?

In climatology that equates with pseudoscience.
In physics that equates with pseudoscience.
In chemistry that equates with pseudoscience.
In biology that equates with pseudoscience.

I'm not the one making a claim that conflicts with climatologists world-wide: It is you. Thus the onus is upon you to establish (A) that you are aware of prior art, (B) that you are using the established methodology or can explain the flaws in current methodology, (C) can pass peer review of your methodology. You've done none of these ... thus sir ... it is pseudoscience.

DA Morgan