Republicans, do you know what "empirical" means?

[Oddball]

Climatology ain't a hard science, Bozo.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

If you had the ability to be honest, the list of "why" the left wing is fucking moronic would have to be something that would cause your "finnners" to break off.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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.

 

[RollingThunder]

Climatology ain't a hard science, Bozo.

ANY science is too hard for a retard like you, screwball.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Climatology ain't a hard science, Bozo.

ANY science is too hard for a retard like you, screwball.

Fart takes a mighty whiff.

 

[Unkotare]

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.

Wow, what a little bitch.

 

[RollingThunder]

Climatology ain't a hard science, Bozo.

ANY science is too hard for a retard like you, screwball.

Fart takes a mighty whiff.

IlieMostly posts more meaningless drivel, as usual.

 

[skookerasbil]

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.

The operative word is "evidence"!!!!!

And this guy calls everybody else a "retard".!!!!!!!!

There is evidence that I have some hair.......doesnt mean Im bald, doesnt mean I have a full head of hair? So which is it? There is "evidence" that CoQ10 increases the efficiency of the heart. And? There is "evidence" that small boobed women make better lovers than big boobed women!! Should big boobed women be discarded?


"Evidence" doesnt mean proof!!!


Even the retarded can figure that out!!!

 

[Unkotare]

There is "evidence" that small boobed women make better lovers than big boobed women!!

There is?! I dunno about that.

 

[polarbear]

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.

Yeah and the whole world could see that when the all time liberal champion Bill Clinton tried to re-define what "is is, and what is is not" when he had to explain why he jerked off in the oval office on Monica`s dress.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs"]Clinton, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman... - YouTube[/ame]

If it`s not on MSNBC it did not happen.


Just like the old masters of their ideology, now you see it and now you don`t and reality is what we say "is is and what is is not":

Back then Germans had to stand trial for what communist bastards said "was was"

CharonBoat.com ? Showing Beyond: Fake -> Nazis at work - hanged woman (U.S.S.R.; 1943) (Set 1)

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.

And now the neo-communists a.k.a. "Democrats" use the same art of fact falsification against Conservatives and do what comes "natural"

Strange why the pictures don`t appear in the "post preview"...well then Ill post direct links, seems the internet has recently been thoroughly sanitized to be politically correct or there is something screwy with the HTML editor at the U.S. Messageboard..in edit mode everthing is there, but vanishes when you preview or post :
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YYMeAu4i7...rman-brutality-russia-ww2-fake-images-003.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_YYMeAu4i7...rman-brutality-russia-ww2-fake-images-004.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_YYMeAu4i7...rman-brutality-russia-ww2-fake-images-004.jpg



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YYMeAu4i7...german-brutality-russia-ww2-fake-pictures.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YYMeAu4i7...rman-brutality-russia-ww2-fake-images-001.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...lov,_Molotov,_Stalin,_with_Nikolai_Yezhov.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/The_Commissar_Vanishes_2.jpg

No I`m not a "holocaust denier" I just want to point out a pattern how the old left "let`s do the twist " works:

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

 

[Oddball]

 

[polarbear]

You are no run of the mill media spoon fed fool, so I`m asking for your advice..
Seems you had no problems with the jpg URLs yielding a picture when you posted...why the F... did it not work when I did it..???
Is this message board blocking direct links to some web pages and their contents they don`t consider Java script "clean"

 

[Oddball]

Dunno...Just use the "Go Advanced" or "Preview Post" buttons to see if my desired images show up...If they don't I keep looking for one that does.

 

[freedombecki]

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.

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.

In your analysis of climate change and evidence gleaned from ice cores, fossil records, and geologic records, have you engaged in such studies as a geologist or other research capacity person? I was simply curious as to why you would expect people from other political perspectives to have this type of knowledge and/or experience.

This particular board seems to have a majority of people from many perspectives who are well into enough intelligence to read and access materials that would help them understand almost any scientific data base sent their way.

Also, in many scientific communities, different very bright scientists often don't see data eye-to-eye, and debate is good, because it causes them to see perspectives they may never have considered without discussion from people in their field or who are astute enough scholars to point out parallels in their field's strength of knowledge about say, microscopic evidence placing a particular parameter of temperature on a given region, etc.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

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 another mighty swing and, of course, misses again.

 

[RollingThunder]

Fart takes a mighty whiff.

IlieMostly posts more meaningless drivel, as usual.

Fart takes another mighty swing and, of course, misses again.

And still more meaningless drivel from the new forum resident retard.

 

[TheOldSchool]

I thought this thread died ages ago.

 

[RollingThunder]

I thought this thread died ages ago.

Well, you know, the rightwingnuts kept wanting to prove over and over again that they really don't have a clue as to what "empirical" actually means. It got kind of hilarious at points.

 

[jtpr312]

based on observtion or experiance, which is something the left uses rarely in their arguments.

 

[SSDD]

based on observtion or experiance, which is something the left uses rarely in their arguments.

They observe the computers running the models and report on the output. The fact that the output from the models doesn't jibe with reality really doesn't enter into their equation.