According to dictionary.com "a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge."
Number two: Where is Kano's response, you refer to? Did you get him kicked off because he was too smart for you? (That really wouldn't take much.)
Number three: You have just proven that your mother buying you that dictionary, is equivalent to a father buying an idiot child a shotgun.
Gary. When are you going to get out of realm of abstractness and come into reality? I once knew a graduate from Penn State who designed a mechanical portion of a machine. When it obviously didn't work he said, "Well it does theoretically." Ha! Ha!
This Popper is a great example of a lot of words but little substance. Read it closely and take it down to the lowest common denominator and you will see that, that has been said, excluding the denier comment, more clearly by other people, many of them on this site in reference to you. Just because you can't understand it, doesn't mean the rest of us can't.
Science tells me that ENSO events drive temperatures upwards and not CO2. Temperature records following these events more than confirm this. Batching 10 year records is just another statistical form of analogy. Maybe that's what Sagebrush was doing. Plotting temperatures and attaching them to CO2 increases where CO2 is the driver of temperatures is the very nature of the AGW argument.
I guess we could have said that after the El Nino of 1925-1926 when temperatures spiked and kept rising a few years afterwards. All of the way to 1945 or so. Does the "Dust Bowl" bring back any memories? Are we stepping back in time and blaming CO2 for that increase?
Going back a little further we can see China showing the results of a major El Nino event (1876-1878). 13 million died during that year and temperatures continued to climb years afterwards. Although there was a steep drop at the beginning of the 1880s (curiously at the beginning of instrumental temperature record keeping). Are we going to step back in time and blame CO2 for that temperature increase?
"Major ENSO events were recorded in the years 1790–93, 1828, 1876–78, 1891, 1925–26, 1972–73, 1982–83, 1997–98 and 2009–2010,[46] with 1997-1998 being one of the strongest ever."
Major ENSO events have a very big impact on continued rising temperatures. The catastrophic El Nino event of 1876-1878 is a very good example of temperature extremes being reached naturally.
La Nina in 1891? ... and the temperature drop following? What other La Nina events had a major impact on cooling? We haven't had many major La Ninas. It seems that El Ninos are very prevalent in recent times. Who cares about parsing words?
a "stupid method" would be any method where someone starts with the answer they want,
and then picks and chooses among various bits to "prove that result"
scientists call it "cherry picking facts"
Yes.
The following is from one of Sagebrush's 'sources':
>> ...“worldwide, 2012 was among the 10 warmest years on record.”... But the report “fails to mention [2012] was one of the coolest of the decade, and thus confirms the cooling trend,” according to an analysis by climate blogger Pierre Gosselin. <<
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/what…
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;…
This is actually a two-part question:
(1) Does anyone have a source containing a statement more stupid than: >>“fails to mention [2012] was one of the coolest of the decade, and thus confirms the cooling trend,”<
The above statement/conclusion was - according to the CNS News report - the result of "an analysis."
(2) What kind of "analysis" could possibly produce the statement in (1)?
Is there - can there be - an Epistemology of Ignorance (i.e., a Stupid Method [as opposed to the Scientific Method])?
