Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Climatology ain't a hard science, Bozo.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The right wing is stupit because.
Ohh it is just too late and my finnners are tired to type the 20 pages of reasons.
George Bush
Sarah Palin
Coulter
Hannity
Beck
and on and on.
Climatology ain't a hard science, Bozo.
Climatology ain't a hard science, Bozo.
Climatology ain't a hard science, Bozo.
ANY science is too hard for a retard like you, screwball.
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.
Climatology ain't a hard science, Bozo.
ANY science is too hard for a retard like you, screwball.
Fart takes a mighty whiff.
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.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.
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.
There is "evidence" that small boobed women make better lovers than big boobed women!!
Climatology ain't a hard science, Bozo.
It's hard for the AGW crowds to wrap their so-called minds around what it is and what it isn't.
This is the most pathetic image we have ever seen. It is estimated that more than 4,000 women of various ages were hanged by Nazi forces between 1939 and 1945. Many more were shot or guillotined and many were tortured before minimal or non-existent trials.
Larry Flynt...the publisher of Hustler magazine, offered a $1 million reward... Flynt was a sworn enemy of the Republican party [and] sought to dig up dirt on the Republican members of Congress who were leading the impeachment campaign against President Clinton. [...Although] Flynt claimed at the time to have the goods on up to a dozen prominent Republicans, the ad campaign helped to bring down only one. Robert Livingston – a congressman from Louisiana...abruptly retired after learning that Mr Flynt was about to reveal that he had also had an affair
Well, I hope not, TheOldSchool. When I studied empirical evidence in medical classes and human health, evidence was based on reported cases over a broad region or continent to determine if a medical problem were pandemic or not, which would cause society to take the study's findings and go through certain steps to ensure the health of the general population.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.
ANY science is too hard for a retard like you, screwball.
Fart takes a mighty whiff.
IlieMostly posts more meaningless drivel, as usual.
Fart takes a mighty whiff.
IlieMostly posts more meaningless drivel, as usual.
Fart takes another mighty swing and, of course, misses again.
I thought this thread died ages ago.
based on observtion or experiance, which is something the left uses rarely in their arguments.