Republicans, do you know what "empirical" means?

[bripat9643]

Here this is from wikipedia. A bad source I know but eh.

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.

That's where the anthropogenic global warming nutburgers breakdown. Their theories are never tested.

 

[bripat9643]

You are speaking of the scientific method, TheOldSchool. The scientific method relies on testing and measuring and running experiments rather than what the preacher said.

Fossils are measured for the amount of decay of the.carbon-14 isotope found in all organic material. The amount left behind tells scientists how old the fossil is.

Conversely, fossils can't be over 6,000 years old because creation occurred for everything at the same time. This means cavemen could ride dinosaurs. Why? Because the Bible and the preacher say so.

Science uses empirical evidence based on experimentation and scientific measurements with the use of replication of the results to supply reliability of the conclusions.

And the Bible uses writings of some men of a nomadic Semetic tribe. An old story.

Regards from Rosie

So what experiments have the global warming quacks performed? What results have been replicated? What predictions have the quacks made that were accurate?

 

[RosieS]

You are speaking of the scientific method, TheOldSchool. The scientific method relies on testing and measuring and running experiments rather than what the preacher said.

Fossils are measured for the amount of decay of the.carbon-14 isotope found in all organic material. The amount left behind tells scientists how old the fossil is.

Conversely, fossils can't be over 6,000 years old because creation occurred for everything at the same time. This means cavemen could ride dinosaurs. Why? Because the Bible and the preacher say so.

Science uses empirical evidence based on experimentation and scientific measurements with the use of replication of the results to supply reliability of the conclusions.

And the Bible uses writings of some men of a nomadic Semetic tribe. An old story.

Regards from Rosie

So what experiments have the global warming quacks performed? What results have been replicated? What predictions have the quacks made that were accurate?

Greenland ice core samples from different places on the island compared with each other and with core samples from .the Antarctic.

Next comes comparisons of core samples from ocean sediments from different oceans.

The atmospheric and climatological conditions can be compared and contrasted using an historical timeline to match up eras.

There is now an ice core library that can be used for reference.

Carbon dioxide events ( figure it out) can be mapped.Ocean acidification can be pinpointed and matched.

Predictions of what we have been doing to the climate can be made from the more recent layers and extrapolated.

These things are what experimental scientists are, and have been doing.

Regards from Rosie

 

[bripat9643]

You are speaking of the scientific method, TheOldSchool. The scientific method relies on testing and measuring and running experiments rather than what the preacher said.

Fossils are measured for the amount of decay of the.carbon-14 isotope found in all organic material. The amount left behind tells scientists how old the fossil is.

Conversely, fossils can't be over 6,000 years old because creation occurred for everything at the same time. This means cavemen could ride dinosaurs. Why? Because the Bible and the preacher say so.

Science uses empirical evidence based on experimentation and scientific measurements with the use of replication of the results to supply reliability of the conclusions.

And the Bible uses writings of some men of a nomadic Semetic tribe. An old story.

Regards from Rosie

So what experiments have the global warming quacks performed? What results have been replicated? What predictions have the quacks made that were accurate?

Greenland ice core samples from different places on the island compared with each other and with core samples from .the Antarctic.

Next comes comparisons of core samples from ocean sediments from different oceans.

The atmospheric and climatological conditions can be compared and contrasted using an historical timeline to match up eras.

There is now an ice core library that can be used for reference.

Carbon dioxide events ( figure it out) can be mapped.Ocean acidification can be pinpointed and matched.

Predictions of what we have been doing to the climate can be made from the more recent layers and extrapolated.

These things are what experimental scientists are, and have been doing.

Regards from Rosie

None of that constitutes an experiment that can be replicated. It's a record of historical data, and nothing more. All the predictions the quacks have made turned out to be false.

 

[polarbear]

Well Ian, extinction periods are not minor changes.

You came up with a good example how empirical data is twisted to fit the hypothesis. Real science looks at empirical data and then forwards a "best fit" hypothesis. But as the wise guy who started this thread just admitted, everybody but conservatives runs it backwards.
First comes the hypothesis and after that spin doctors look for empirical data that fits the assertion...and ignore everything that does not fit.

Republicans, do you know what "empirical" means?

Empiricism involves creating a hypothesis, observing the impact of the independent variable, and determining a conclusion based upon the data and your observations.

Let`s do that with the 5 extinction events.
First we take a look what AGW subscribers favorite and most quoted web site has to say:
Earth's five mass extinction events

What caused these mass extinctions? To find the major driver of coral extinction, Veron 2008 looks at the possible options and eliminates many as the primary cause. A meteorite strike is capable of creating huge dust clouds that lead to devastating darkness and cold. However, if this were the cause of coral reef extinction, 99% of the world's coral species would be wiped out in weeks or months
balh blah blah and so on

Till they finally linked all 5 events to CO2

What Veron 2008 found was each mass extinction event corresponded to periods of quickly changing atmospheric CO2. When CO2 changes slowly, the gradual increase allows mixing and buffering of surface layers by deep ocean sinks. Marine organisms also have time to adapt to the new environmental conditions. However, when CO2 increases abruptly, the acidification effects are intensified in shallow waters owing to a lack of mixing. It also gives marine life little time to adapt.

Even Wikipedia, far from being neutral does not publish crap like that:
Extinction event - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Despite the popularization of these five events, there is no fine line separating them from other extinction events; indeed, using different methods of calculating an extinction's impact can lead to other events featuring in the top five.[12]
The older the fossil record gets, the more difficult it is to read. This is because:

• Older fossils are harder to find because they are usually buried at a considerable depth in the rock.
• Dating older fossils is more difficult.
• Productive fossil beds are researched more than unproductive ones, therefore leaving certain periods unresearched.
• Prehistoric environmental disturbances can disturb the deposition process.
• The preservation of fossils varies on land, but marine fossils tend to be better preserved than their sought after land-based counterparts.[13]

It has been suggested that the apparent variations in marine biodiversity may actually be an artifact, with abundance estimates directly related to quantity of rock available for sampling from different time periods.[

Just to show you (again) how full of crap "climatologists" are when they are yapping about "ocean acidification" and link that to 380 ppm CO2 + warmer temperatures.
First off as the temperature goes up CO2 solubility drops:

Secondly, there is the hydration equilibrium constant...I doubt that "climatologists" ever even heard about it would consider it, because they do their best to avoid hard numbers and hard facts.
The hard fact is that of all the CO2 that has been absorbed by water only 1.7 thousandth of it form Carbonic Acid which can acidify.

So if you got say 500 ppm CO2 that yields only 0.85 ppm Carbonic acid.
That`s 0.85 milligrams Carbonic Acid per liter, = 0.000013 Mol Carbonic ACID per 1 liter water
And Carbonic acid has a dissociation constant of only 4.6 * 10 ^(-7)
Which means only the square root of that ~ 5 thousandth are acidic Hydrogen (H+) ions....if you had 64 grams CARBONIC ACID per liter...
But You got at best only 1 milligram Carbonic Acid per liter. The CO2 matters shit...or more bluntly sweet f--- all !!

Please do tell me how that could cause 5 extinction events and soon #6:

If we continue business-as-usual CO2 emissions, ocean pH will eventually drop to a point at which a host of other chemical changes such as anoxia (an absence of oxygen) are expected. If this happens, the state of the oceans at the end Cretaceous 65 million years ago will become a reality and the Earth will enter the sixth mass extinction.

No, don`t tell me, because you only quote the assertions.
He who made the assertion is obligated to furnish proof....and a hypothesis that "fits" the "empirical" data he fabricated only proves what kind of crap "science" it`s all been based on...

 

[polarbear]

This is how real science works:


...to all the flaming assholes who are going to call me a libtard and other wonderfully creative things I'll give a pre-emptive FUCK YOU because I'm off to the bars. I'll be back later to drunkenly yell at you.

Is that a gay bar ?

The problem with libtards is that conservative minded students study hard & the engineering sciences that deal with reality, while the libtards study at best law...a.k.a. the art of word and fact twisting or "social science" and then "teach sexology " @ the elementary school how nice it is to be gay.

So I`m pretty certain you have no idea whatsoever what a correlation factor is. But as far as the AGW for want of empirical data that fits this crap is concerned this is where it stands today:

Solar Variability and Terrestrial Climate - NASA Science

Two other recent studies that have drawn clear connections between solar changes and the Earth’s climate are Soon (2005) and Kärner (2004). Soon (2005 GRL) showed how the arctic temperatures (the arctic of course has no urbanization contamination) correlated with solar irradiance far better than with the greenhouse gases over the last century (see Figure 3). For the 10 year running mean of total solar irradiance (TSI) vs Arctic-wide air
temperature anomalies (Polyokov), he found a strong correlation of (r-squared of 0.79) compared to a correlation vs greenhouse gases of just 0.22.

Go get drunk in your gay bar, and after you had some "safe sex", sober up, take a cold shower and get a conservative scientist to explain it to you and your libtard gay orgy friends how a correlation is defined in REAL SCIENCE.
B.t.w,..A "Correlation" is not the same as the kind of co-relations gay libtards like to engage in.

And while you are at it compare that to how libtards and the IPCC define it:

Attribution of recent climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Attribution of recent climate change

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has concluded that "most" of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."[2] The IPCC defines "very likely" as indicating a probability of greater than 90%, based on expert judgement.

I`ll get to the "expert judgement" later.
Let`s look at "most of the observed increase" first...same URL source

Uncertainties in the temperature record
Systematic local biases in surface temperature trends may exist due to changes in station exposure and instrumentation over land, or changes in measurement techniques by ships and buoys in the ocean.[40][16] It is likely that these biases are largely random and therefore cancel out over large regions such as the globe or tropics.[

So go to your bar and consult your libtard drunks how you get at random just as many temperature data points that read by coincidence too low to cancel out all the ones that have been too high.

The only errors possible for being too low is if they mixed up Nunavut stations with New Mexico...quite possible if we are dealing with libtards.
No ground based stations records temperatures that are too low. The errors are all on the + side, because the instrument was in direct sunlight or near a black tarmac...commonly found in airports...or near an AC hot air exhaust vent...as the audit found etc etc...
Where exactly would you place a thermometer so that it would read "too low".
In the shade?...You dimwit...!
That`s exactly how you are supposed to measure the real air temperature.

Last no least this is what the audit found, concerning the "experts" and their judgement

The IPCC defines "very likely" as indicating a probability of greater than 90%, based on expert judgement.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.
A major deception on 'global warming'
This IPCC report,like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed.
That is, it has been read, discussed modified and approved by an international body of experts
These scientists have laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what it appears to be -- it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists in the title page.In my years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society,I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.

more than 15 sections in Chapter8 of the report
-- the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate --were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the
supposedly final text.
Few of these changes were merely cosmetic;nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism

The following passages are examples of those included in the approved
report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:
-- "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changesto the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."
-- "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic[man-made] causes."
-- "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

The reviewing scientists used this original language to keep themselves and the IPCC honest.
I am in no position to know who made the major changes in Chapter 8 ; but the report's lead author,B enjamin D. Santer, must presumably take the major responsibility.

If the IPCC is incapable of following its most basic procedures it would be best to abandon the entire IPCC process or at least that part that is concerned with the scientific evidence on climate change,and
look for more reliable sources of advice to governments on this important question.

I`m glad we don`t have as many libtards in Canada..no way would Obama get elected here...and no wonder you`re off to get drunk...again... as you must have been when you voted for a liar like him. Lies, that`s about the only thing libtards are really good at,
Just because we let assholes like you get away with a lie once on a while, don`t assume we let you get away with it all the time.
You got a real terminal problem...maybe when your mommy sent you to a conventional-conservative Therapist you went to a gay libtard The-rapist instead, which would explain why you are so fucked up.
Between the wacky-tobaccy and the booze you only got a few blinking neurons left...blinking left u-turns...going nowhere but up your own asshole

 

[whitehall]

EDIT - Because apparently empiricism also means something fucking crazy... in fact just go away from this thread. Let it die. Despite my passionate argument

Empiricism: The objective observation of the phenomena of interest; objective observations are "independent of the individual prejudices, tastes, and private opinions of the scientist. Results of empirical methods are objective in that they are open to anyone's observation and do not depend on the subjective belief of the individual scientist."

This is how real science works:

Empiricism involves creating a hypothesis, observing the impact of the independent variable, and determining a conclusion based upon the data and your observations.

From that you can establish a theory. For that theory to be considered sound it must include prediction (the implementation of the independent variable has an effect), replication (upon removal of the independent variable it's effect is lost), and verification (reintroduction of the independent variable results in the same previous effect).

Now for the crux of the issue:

Climate change, accelerated global warming, whatever the hell you want to call it.

Levels of carbon in the atmosphere are the independent variable in the case of this empirical experiment. We have extensive evidence from ice cores, fossil records, and geologic records about the cycle of change in the earth's climate dating back to millions of years. What has been observed is that the cycles of climate change happen to coincide with levels of carbon in the atmosphere. The independent variable has been inserted, removed, and reinserted many times. And observations are that climate has changed along the same schedule.

Do not think you're super smart because you read an article that the climate changes naturally! Everyone knows that!

What has yet to be explained is whether or not levels of carbon in the atmosphere are a causation for that change.

The right would have us halt all research on the matter because who knows; they don't care, they want more oil, I don't know.

I have no problem with people being against regulation because, frankly, other countries are not regulating themselves and at this point any regulation won't have much of an impact anyways.

But STOP denying the science behind it. No on is making this up. Yes some people have an agenda. Guess what, everyone has an agenda.

But the only way to determine whether carbon levels really are fucking things up will be if things get fucked up. And then it's too late. So open your ears and minds and try to think for a second that there is an actual reason why people are working on this.

And to all the flaming assholes who are going to call me a libtard and other wonderfully creative things I'll give a pre-emptive FUCK YOU because I'm off to the bars. I'll be back later to drunkenly yell at you.

Libs: Do you know what the word "THEORY" means? A theory is analysis, abstract thought, SPECULATION. Now let's cut through the empirical crap. Global warming is a lucrative scam for not only the pseudo-scientific university community through lavish grants but it has become an international extortion scheme tied to energy production. I guarantee you that in the real empirical world, universities will do their damndest to keep the grant money coming by offering junk evidence while ignoring empirical evidence that doesn't agree with the theory. Core samples show that the world has been emerging from an ice age for the last couple of hundred years which is nothing in geological time. The freaking weather channel computer can't even determine for sure whether a snow storm is going to hit the Mid-Atlantic this coming wednesday. If man-made global warming was empirical they would call it fact instead of theory.

 

[RollingThunder]

Libs: Do you know what the word "THEORY" means? A theory is analysis, abstract thought, SPECULATION.[LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...] Now let's cut through the empirical crap. Global warming is a lucrative scam for not only the pseudo-scientific university community through lavish grants but it has become an international extortion scheme tied to energy production. I guarantee you that in the real empirical world, universities will do their damndest to keep the grant money coming by offering junk evidence while ignoring empirical evidence that doesn't agree with the theory. Core samples show that the world has been emerging from an ice age for the last couple of hundred years[...LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOL...] which is nothing in geological time. The freaking weather channel computer can't even determine for sure whether a snow storm is going to hit the Mid-Atlantic this coming wednesday. If man-made global warming was empirical they would call it fact instead of theory.

....LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you are such a pathetic and hilarious example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action....you ask if "libs" "know what the word "THEORY" means?".....and you then define it for us as "analysis, abstract thought, SPECULATION"....and that is just hysterical 'cause you just demonstrated that you are so ignorant about science that you have no idea that there is a difference between the way 'theory' is used in common speech and the meaning of 'scientific theory'. You are the one who actually doesn't "know what the word "THEORY" means" in the context of these debates concerning AGW. You are such an ignorant little retard.

The United States National Academy of Sciences highlights the distinction between common usage of the word 'theory' and the quite different and better defined meaning of 'scientific theory' in this paper. Here's some excerpts:

In everyday usage, “theory” often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, “I have a theory about why that happened,” they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence. The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics).



The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society, also pointed out the distinction in this paper. Here's some excerpts:

In detective novels, a "theory" is little more than an educated guess, often based on a few circumstantial facts. In science, the word "theory" means much more. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

 

[skookerasbil]

Libs: Do you know what the word "THEORY" means? A theory is analysis, abstract thought, SPECULATION.[LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...] Now let's cut through the empirical crap. Global warming is a lucrative scam for not only the pseudo-scientific university community through lavish grants but it has become an international extortion scheme tied to energy production. I guarantee you that in the real empirical world, universities will do their damndest to keep the grant money coming by offering junk evidence while ignoring empirical evidence that doesn't agree with the theory. Core samples show that the world has been emerging from an ice age for the last couple of hundred years[...LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOL...] which is nothing in geological time. The freaking weather channel computer can't even determine for sure whether a snow storm is going to hit the Mid-Atlantic this coming wednesday. If man-made global warming was empirical they would call it fact instead of theory.

....LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you are such a pathetic and hilarious example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action....you ask if "libs" "know what the word "THEORY" means?".....and you then define it for us as "analysis, abstract thought, SPECULATION"....and that is just hysterical 'cause you just demonstrated that you are so ignorant about science that you have no idea that there is a difference between the way 'theory' is used in common speech and the meaning of 'scientific theory'. You are the one who actually doesn't "know what the word "THEORY" means" in the context of these debates concerning AGW. You are such an ignorant little retard.

The United States National Academy of Sciences highlights the distinction between common usage of the word 'theory' and the quite different and better defined meaning of 'scientific theory' in this paper. Here's some excerpts:

In everyday usage, “theory” often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, “I have a theory about why that happened,” they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence. The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics).



The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society, also pointed out the distinction in this paper. Here's some excerpts:

In detective novels, a "theory" is little more than an educated guess, often based on a few circumstantial facts. In science, the word "theory" means much more. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

Heres a "general scientific community" protesting a "general scientific community" and its totally bogus climate models..........

And guess which group is not losing?



A prominent scientist who's followed the science of global warming from the beginning, Dyson explains why climate models have no scientific merit, why average global ground temperature is a great fiction, and what he believes the real dangers of increased CO2 in the atmosphere are. He suggests that the relatively simple solution of land use management could potentially give us the ability to control the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at any level we'd like, and there's no need to stop burning coal and oil.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSxubKfTBU[/ame]

 

[skookerasbil]

30,000 scientists sued Al Gore over the bogusness of global warming...........they must all be oil moguls!!!!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ]Al Gore sued by over 30.000 Scientists for Global Warming fraud / John Coleman - YouTube[/ame]


Gore continues to flee any debate on the subject......."it has become a religion!!"

 

[konradv]

This is the dumbest thing that has ever been posted on this forum. Science rejects empiricism because empirical evidence is based solely on what your senses tell you. Aristotle was famous for using empirical evidence, and he concluded that the Earth is the motionless center of the universe. It wasn't until Copernicus came along and clearly demonstrated that empirical evidence is wrong, and that the Earth has to revolve around the sun, that science even began to function as a discipline.

This makes your entire argument about the science behind climate change not worth the time it took you to type it.

Want to tell me again that the right wing is stupid?

The right wing is stupid. Your argument against empiricism is clueless, because it was the very improvement of empirical observation that led to the change in opinion you mentioned, not its abandonment.

 

[whitehall]

Libs: Do you know what the word "THEORY" means? A theory is analysis, abstract thought, SPECULATION.[LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...] Now let's cut through the empirical crap. Global warming is a lucrative scam for not only the pseudo-scientific university community through lavish grants but it has become an international extortion scheme tied to energy production. I guarantee you that in the real empirical world, universities will do their damndest to keep the grant money coming by offering junk evidence while ignoring empirical evidence that doesn't agree with the theory. Core samples show that the world has been emerging from an ice age for the last couple of hundred years[...LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOLOL...] which is nothing in geological time. The freaking weather channel computer can't even determine for sure whether a snow storm is going to hit the Mid-Atlantic this coming wednesday. If man-made global warming was empirical they would call it fact instead of theory.

....LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....you are such a pathetic and hilarious example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action....you ask if "libs" "know what the word "THEORY" means?".....and you then define it for us as "analysis, abstract thought, SPECULATION"....and that is just hysterical 'cause you just demonstrated that you are so ignorant about science that you have no idea that there is a difference between the way 'theory' is used in common speech and the meaning of 'scientific theory'. You are the one who actually doesn't "know what the word "THEORY" means" in the context of these debates concerning AGW. You are such an ignorant little retard.

The United States National Academy of Sciences highlights the distinction between common usage of the word 'theory' and the quite different and better defined meaning of 'scientific theory' in this paper. Here's some excerpts:

In everyday usage, “theory” often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, “I have a theory about why that happened,” they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence. The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the Sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics).



The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society, also pointed out the distinction in this paper. Here's some excerpts:

In detective novels, a "theory" is little more than an educated guess, often based on a few circumstantial facts. In science, the word "theory" means much more. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

I guess I struck a cord. Anytime libs resort to a nervous string of LOL's you know they have been caught with their pants down. It seems the left has dropped the "man-made" from man-made-global-warming. It's easier to defend that way. The modern "science" of global warming isn't a science. It's more like sasquatch sightings and "evidence" that ancient outer space aliens once landed. Pop-culture "science" can make all sorts of theories convincing. The point is that we don't have time for this bull shit. The Country desperately needs fossil fuel and cheap energy or we will find ourselves speaking Chinese in a couple of decades. Last winter was colder than normal. How does that fit the global warming "science"? They ignore it like they ignore anything that doesn't fit their lucrative scenario.

 

[Oddball]

This is the dumbest thing that has ever been posted on this forum. Science rejects empiricism because empirical evidence is based solely on what your senses tell you. Aristotle was famous for using empirical evidence, and he concluded that the Earth is the motionless center of the universe. It wasn't until Copernicus came along and clearly demonstrated that empirical evidence is wrong, and that the Earth has to revolve around the sun, that science even began to function as a discipline.

This makes your entire argument about the science behind climate change not worth the time it took you to type it.

Want to tell me again that the right wing is stupid?

The right wing is stupid. Your argument against empiricism is clueless, because it was the very improvement of empirical observation that led to the change in opinion you mentioned, not its abandonment.

No, it was Copernicus showing up with physically producible, verifiable and falsifiable evidence that led to empiricism being relegated to the pseudo-science that it is....Stupid.

 

[RollingThunder]

This is the dumbest thing that has ever been posted on this forum. Science rejects empiricism because empirical evidence is based solely on what your senses tell you. Aristotle was famous for using empirical evidence, and he concluded that the Earth is the motionless center of the universe. It wasn't until Copernicus came along and clearly demonstrated that empirical evidence is wrong, and that the Earth has to revolve around the sun, that science even began to function as a discipline.

This makes your entire argument about the science behind climate change not worth the time it took you to type it.

Want to tell me again that the right wing is stupid?

The right wing is stupid. Your argument against empiricism is clueless, because it was the very improvement of empirical observation that led to the change in opinion you mentioned, not its abandonment.

No, it was Copernicus showing up with physically producible, verifiable and falsifiable evidence that led to empiricism being relegated to the pseudo-science that it is....Stupid.

It is hilarious to watch a couple of ignorant retards like Screwball and Quantum Dirtbag try to 'educate' other people about a subject they can't comprehend when the other people are way smarter and more knowledgeable about the subject to begin with. The OP was right, these fools have no idea what 'empirical' actually means.

Empiricism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.

 

[polarbear]

This is the dumbest thing that has ever been posted on this forum. Science rejects empiricism because empirical evidence is based solely on what your senses tell you. Aristotle was famous for using empirical evidence, and he concluded that the Earth is the motionless center of the universe. It wasn't until Copernicus came along and clearly demonstrated that empirical evidence is wrong, and that the Earth has to revolve around the sun, that science even began to function as a discipline.

This makes your entire argument about the science behind climate change not worth the time it took you to type it.

Want to tell me again that the right wing is stupid?

The right wing is stupid. Your argument against empiricism is clueless, because it was the very improvement of empirical observation that led to the change in opinion you mentioned, not its abandonment.

No, it was Copernicus showing up with physically producible, verifiable and falsifiable evidence that led to empiricism being relegated to the pseudo-science that it is....Stupid.

See what I mean, they don`t get it, no matter how often it`s explained.
There was no improvement of empirical observation whatsoever. Quite the opposite. The IPCC doubled down on stupidity and hired even more activists with no scientific qualifications to "peer review" their "theory"... 78 more from that lot, just last year.
And none of the other audit recommendations were implemented either.
It`s all about "changing the opinion" and no efforts at all are made to bring the data gathering and interpretation methodology up to snuff.
Even if it had been implemented a hypothesis remains just that until there is experimentation that can verify that an increase of 100 ppm CO2 can melt massive ice masses and warm up oceans.
Blowing pure CO2 into a capped bottle and showing a temperature increase when you place it in front of a Chicken roaster heat lamp only proves how stupid the guy is who needs to do an "experiment" to find out what will happen. None of them have a clue how much faster or slower ice would melt if all that`s changed is just the air temperature by a fraction of 1 deg C....and when it does by how much the salinity and the ocean temperature drop if the melt-rate is increased.
They just don`t get it. The bulk of the polar ice is dissolved by more saline ocean current water underneath it ...that`s why icebergs roll...they get top heavy...and the difference in salinity when ice melts or water evaporates is the main force that drives ocean currents that are expressed in Sverdrup units.
The sun and the cubic miles per second water it can move around the globe in the oceans and as vapor in the atmosphere is the sole energy conduit for the entire energy transfer...who gives a shit how 3.8 molecules of CO2 per 10 000 other molecules of Nitrogen and Oxygen freak out people that were "led to the change in opinion " by a bunch of crackpot doomsday prophets ....
The only accurate empirical data we do have about the impact of traces of CO2 is, how many idiots can be freaked out with a single CO2 molecule too many in a mass of 10 000 other molecules.
If there were a measurable effect, the first thing that industrial engineers would do is file for a patent and then fill double pane windows with CO2 and install them instead of filling them with Argon or other rare gasses.
Would fraud not be a criminal offense,...huge sums could be made selling "winter season CO2 back-radiation windows" to all the idiots who believe "Yes Virginia" crap "thought experiments"...

 

[SSDD]

Levels of carbon in the atmosphere are the independent variable in the case of this empirical experiment. We have extensive evidence from ice cores, fossil records, and geologic records about the cycle of change in the earth's climate dating back to millions of years. What has been observed is that the cycles of climate change happen to coincide with levels of carbon in the atmosphere. The independent variable has been inserted, removed, and reinserted many times. And observations are that climate has changed along the same schedule.

The empirical evidence that we have gathered from ice cores all over the world is that changes in atmospheric CO2 follow changes in temperature. The empirical evidence tells us that temperature causes a change in atmospheric CO2, not that CO2 causes a change in atmospheric tempeature. Then there is the fact that temperatures have stalled for going on 20 years now while atmospheric CO2 has increased steadily. If the hypothesis were correct, there should be no stalling of temperature while atmospheric CO2 is increasing.

But STOP denying the science behind it. No on is making this up. Yes some people have an agenda. Guess what, everyone has an agenda.

There is no science behind it. There are claims and predictions based on computer models which are inherently flawed because they don't represent real world radiative physics. The observable, empirical evidence is squarely against the AGW hypothesis.

But the only way to determine whether carbon levels really are fucking things up will be if things get fucked up. And then it's too late. So open your ears and minds and try to think for a second that there is an actual reason why people are working on this.

Define fucked up. Are you talking about a natural climate that isn't convenient for us for one reason or another? What is happening in the present climate that is unprecedented in the climate prior to our appearance on the scene? Fucked up seems to suggest that we are causing something new....what exactly are we causing in the global climate that is new and unprecedented?

 

[polarbear]

Levels of carbon in the atmosphere are the independent variable in the case of this empirical experiment. We have extensive evidence from ice cores, fossil records, and geologic records about the cycle of change in the earth's climate dating back to millions of years. What has been observed is that the cycles of climate change happen to coincide with levels of carbon in the atmosphere. The independent variable has been inserted, removed, and reinserted many times. And observations are that climate has changed along the same schedule.

The empirical evidence that we have gathered from ice cores all over the world is that changes in atmospheric CO2 follow changes in temperature. The empirical evidence tells us that temperature causes a change in atmospheric CO2, not that CO2 causes a change in atmospheric tempeature. Then there is the fact that temperatures have stalled for going on 20 years now while atmospheric CO2 has increased steadily. If the hypothesis were correct, there should be no stalling of temperature while atmospheric CO2 is increasing.

But STOP denying the science behind it. No on is making this up. Yes some people have an agenda. Guess what, everyone has an agenda.

There is no science behind it. There are claims and predictions based on computer models which are inherently flawed because they don't represent real world radiative physics. The observable, empirical evidence is squarely against the AGW hypothesis.

But the only way to determine whether carbon levels really are fucking things up will be if things get fucked up. And then it's too late. So open your ears and minds and try to think for a second that there is an actual reason why people are working on this.

Define fucked up. Are you talking about a natural climate that isn't convenient for us for one reason or another? What is happening in the present climate that is unprecedented in the climate prior to our appearance on the scene? Fucked up seems to suggest that we are causing something new....what exactly are we causing in the global climate that is new and unprecedented?

Funny how we "fucked up" isn`t it.
Since we fucked things up the life expectancy, living standards have risen and epidemics are a thing of the past.
We may even "fuck it up" some more as we learn to manipulate macromolecular structures such as DNA and make inroads in artificial intelligence.
No wonder left wing-nuts feel threatened in a world where technology and the ability to exploit Chemistry and Physics determines who wins and who looses.
They want to cling to the outdated and defunct social democratic principles, equality for all at the price of excellence (and rewards) for none because they simply can`t keep up.
When mankind unlocked the power of coal and later fossil fuel we went from the stone and bronze age to steel implements, machinery and rapid mass transport and began space exploration. We also changed from herb and fruit gathering to meat eaters....which is another trait libtards object to...most vegetarians are gay left-wing-nuts that feel intimidated by a meat eater towering over them.
They want to stifle progress because the learning curve has gotten too steep for them. The equality doctrine can only be implemented by stifling all industrial technology that would leave them behind...they just can`t keep up!

How could they? Just take a look at any University and note which faculties are the left-wing-idiotology hotbeds.
No matter where you look it`s not any of the traditional science and engineering faculties.
With the exception of law these faculties for the intellectually less gifted have a name that used to end with "-ology" but lately elevated themselves to a status like "Social Science" for example.
Imagine how fucked up they would be if the rest of us would leave them at their own devices, like we did with ex-communist East Germany or Cuba.
No IPCC or Obama can send me on a guilt trip because I got my own (energy guzzling) transportation, a heated and air conditioned (energy guzzling) house, lots of food, clean water and demand I "compensate" countries where people breed like rats, shit in the middle of their village, hack each other up with machetes and my "carbon foot print" is supposedly threatening their existence.
I don`t subscribe to this left wing equality crap. There are winners and losers and no amount of preaching will fool me into forfeiting my gains so that there are no losers, especially not to those who wound up loosing as a direct result of their own decisions and now demand " a fair share" while stifling the mechanism that produced all the winners they want to fleece.
I did however donate more than most libtard lip-service-window-dressing-double standard- activists to needy and deserving people

and unlike you liberal cowards that fling dirt at me and other conservatives here I can back up what I say and don`t have to remain anonymous.
If you don`t like me don`t hesitate and come here and yell your hatred in my face...if you`ve got the guts

 

[RollingThunder]

The right wing is stupid. Your argument against empiricism is clueless, because it was the very improvement of empirical observation that led to the change in opinion you mentioned, not its abandonment.

No, it was Copernicus showing up with physically producible, verifiable and falsifiable evidence that led to empiricism being relegated to the pseudo-science that it is....Stupid.

See what I mean, they don`t get it, no matter how often it`s explained.

LOLOLOLOL.....very funny considering that it is you, PeanutButterbrain, and the other denier cult dimwits who "don't get it, no matter how often it's explained" because you're so ignorant, brainwashed and outright retarded. You still don't have a clue as to what 'empirical' means.

empirical - Relying on or derived from observation or experiment.
- The American Heritage® Science Dictionary

em·pir·i·cal - adj.
1. a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2. Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,


Empiricism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasizes evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.

 

[Oddball]

But STOP denying the science behind it. No on is making this up. Yes some people have an agenda. Guess what, everyone has an agenda.

There is no science behind it. There are claims and predictions based on computer models which are inherently flawed because they don't represent real world radiative physics. The observable, empirical evidence is squarely against the AGW hypothesis.

Then there is the fact that computer models are incapable of independently gathering new evidence....Instead, they are completely at the mercy of those peddling the hoax to input any new information.

 

[RollingThunder]

Just take a look at any University and note which faculties are the left-wing-idiotology hotbeds.
No matter where you look it`s not any of the traditional science and engineering faculties.

And here's some more of ol' PeanutButterbrains's ignorant insanity.

The results of one scientific study of the political leanings of scientists showed that in the hard sciences and math, the ratio of Democrats to Republicans was 6.3 to 1. In particular fields of study, the ratios were 5.7 to 1 for mathematics, 5.0 to 1 for earth sciences, 4.2 to 1 for physics and 4.1 to 1 for chemistry.
(source: Psychology Today)

Scientists self-identify is national surveys, like this Pew Research one, as being 81% Democrat or Democrat leaning.

(source: Pew Research Center)