You really are a sad case for someone, who I presume, has English as a first language. "That you would think manipulating numbers in a computer substitute for the reality of the laws of physics." Does not mean what you interpret it to mean. Perhaps you should find an English prof. in addition to a Math prof. to help you.
JLowe wrote:
"Believe it or not, this is how lame the statisticall analysis on data has been for temperature analysis."
No it isn't. It may be what you did. It may be the methodology you used. But then you aren't a climatologist and you have already acknowledged your lack of expertise in the discipline. No one I have ever seen publish a paper in a peer reviewed journal has ever written what you wrote: Not once. And not once on your methodology page is there even an acknowledgment that confidence limits might be appropriate or that comparison to the methodology used by subject matter experts might be appropriate.
You proclaim that all university and government researchers, those with PhDs and professorships and Crays are hacks. And that you, a professional gambler with a degree in statistics are the only one capable of doing a proper analysis. Has it occurred to you how credible that is?
JLowe wrote:
"I?d love you to point me to the supposed multitude of peer-reviewed journal papers that have already answered the above questions."
I don't need to. I'm not being paid to be your tutor. All I have to do is demonstrate to any member of the lay public following this thread that you are unqualified, used an improper methodology, and have drawn an incorrect conclusion. If you want research done ... go to the library and start with the citation indexes.
JLowe wrote:
"No in depth analysis has been performed on Austlralian and even, to my knowledge world wide"
And there is the operative phrase: "... to my knowledge ...." That pretty much says all that need be said on the subject. Perhaps you should do something about the state of your knowledge.
