Democrats SUCK!!

[Henry Hawk]

Yet when you post those articles about global warming that are completely lacking in truth, you refuse to acknowledge....

http://theunknownzone.us/smf/index.php?topic=12324.msg429480#msg429480

the infor I got is from the senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre....what makes him incorrect over YOUR sources?

[Bo D]

the infor I got is from the senior adviser at the Norwegian Space Centre....what makes him incorrect over YOUR sources?

OMG! Are you that dense? You quoted a "source" which claimed that a study by the MET office showed that "the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997"

Yet when I showed you that the Met office refuted your very article, you refuse to believe it.

Read this very carefully .....

"
Look what the  Met Office has to say about that ....

http://metofficenews.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/met-office-in-the-media-29-january-2012/

Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled "Forget global warming – it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about". (This is the article you posted.)

This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.

Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.

what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record  for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3."

[me]

I think Ex is saying that when there is empirical evidence that something is correct, regardless of what it is, then anyone who doesn't agree is either stupid or crazy would agree.

He's not saying that you can't have a difference of opinion, but an opinion is only as good as the evidence and facts that supports it. Kinda full circle there.

When you are being given figures and charts on how something is "supposed" to work that is not fact that is opinion and when there are different figures and charts that conflict that is another opinion so who is to say one is right over the other? 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical
em·pir·i·cal
adj \im-ˈpir-i-kəl\
Definition of EMPIRICAL
1
: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2
: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3
: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>

the·o·ry
noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
plural the·o·ries


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
Definition of THEORY
1
: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2
: abstract thought : speculation
3
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4
a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6
a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

What has been presented is a bunch of evidence based on theory:  "empirical evidence".

[Bo D]

What has been presented is a bunch of evidence based on theory:  "empirical evidence".

Whose theory was it that said you can't grow grapes in England? You posted that to justify your opinion. Do you have any evidence?

[me]

Whose theory was it that said you can't grow grapes in England? You posted that to justify your opinion. Do you have any evidence?

I believe I did post something which substantiated that but it was 100's of yrs ago not as recent as I had thought.

[Bo D]

I believe I did post something which substantiated that but it was 100's of yrs ago not as recent as I had thought.

Oh no, you had to make me go look it up, didn't you? 

http://theunknownzone.us/smf/index.php?topic=12324.msg293862;topicseen#msg293862

And they used to grow grapes in England but can't now because the climate is too cold so where's the global warming there?

Which is it? "Can't now" or "100's of yrs ago?"

[Bo D]

Or did you mean you posted it 100's of yrs ago?

That is more believable than what you are saying now. 

[Exterminator]

LOL...ouch!  Pwned!

[Palehorse]

When you are being given figures and charts on how something is "supposed" to work that is not fact that is opinion and when there are different figures and charts that conflict that is another opinion so who is to say one is right over the other? 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empirical
em·pir·i·cal
adj \im-ˈpir-i-kəl\
Definition of EMPIRICAL
1
: originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2
: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory <an empirical basis for the theory>
3
: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment <empirical laws>

the·o·ry
noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
plural the·o·ries


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory
Definition of THEORY
1
: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2
: abstract thought : speculation
3
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4
a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6
a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>

What has been presented is a bunch of evidence based on theory:  "empirical evidence".

Oh holy hell. . .

The standard positivist view of empirically acquired information has been that observation, experience, and experiment serve as neutral arbiters between competing theories.

In a second sense "empirical" in science may be synonymous with "experimental." In this sense, an empirical result is an experimental observation. In this context, the term semi-empirical is used for qualifying theoretical methods which use in part basic axioms or postulated scientific laws and experimental results. Such methods are opposed to theoretical ab initio methods which are purely deductive and based on first principles.

In statistics, "empirical" quantities are those computed from observed values, as opposed to derived from theoretical considerations.

In economics, "empirical" generally refers to statistical or econometric analysis of numeric data. Other forms of observation-based hypothesis testing are not considered to be "empirics."

The use of the adjective empirical, especially in scientific studies using statistics, may also indicate that a particular correlation between two parameters has been found, but that so far, no theory for the mechanism of the connection is known.

Typically when the term "empirical evidence" is utilized it is understood that the information / data being referred to meets universal criteria surrounding validity, IE - peer review / analysis of methodology, experiment repeatability to confirm, and/or the overwhelming conclusion arrived at based upon analysis of all data. Credibility of data, sources, are an important factor.

Funny how you skipped right over number one and went straight to the definition that best supports your objective. 

[me]

How can you get a fact from something that is theory?  The "project" health care costs are just that, "projected"  and so far have proved to be wrong and not in our favor, it is going to cost more than their "projection".  According to their "projections" insurance costs would go down. Well, did they? 

If they can't get the weather right a week, or for that matter even a day, from now how can they predict what it will be in 20yrs from now? 

Cash for clunkers was supposed to save jobs and create new ones according to their "projections".  Well, it shut down tons of car dealerships, used car lots, and didn't create any new jobs. 

The reason I picked that particular line was because all of the policies I disagree with are based on "projected" figures not facts which leaves it open for differences of opinions any way you slice it. The only fact involved is if you tell people you are going to give them something they are going to grab it and want more.

[followsthewolf]

Hey, "me."

The theory of gravity is just a theory, too.

Care to climb up on a 10-story building to test it?

The reason scientists do not ascribe absolutes to much of anything is because of the possibility (however infinitesimally small) that it might not prove true in the trillionth time someone tests it.

However, that itsy-bitsy, teensy-weensy possibility is enough for the ignorant to pump enough hot air into it for it to grow into a hot air balloon, usually by someone selling some self-serving philosophy about "moral goodness" or a "right to do business."

Hypocritical bastards.

[Exterminator]

Cash for clunkers was supposed to save jobs and create new ones according to their "projections".  Well, it shut down tons of car dealerships, used car lots, and didn't create any new jobs.

FAIL!

Final numbers are in for the so-called "cash for clunkers" program, and by most measures, the program looks like a roaring success:

690,114 cars were purchased under the program; two-thirds of those bought by consumers were passenger cars.

The average rebate was $4,170.18, for a total of $2.878 billion. The rest of the $3 billion budget will cover administrative expenses.

The average new car bought with the rebates got 9.2 mpg more than the average clunker traded in, for an annual average fuel savings per driver of 277 gallons of fuel or about $720.

The Department of Transportation credits the program with saving 42,000 jobs in the auto industry and says it expects those jobs will be sustainable, because automakers have ramped up production to meet the clunkers demand.

Notably, 690,114 older cars were taken off the road, including 450,778 SUVs and other light trucks that likely lacked electronic stability control and other modern safety equipment. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has estimated that making ESC standard on new cars would save as many as 10,000 lives a year. This program has taken a significant step toward that goal.

[followsthewolf]

Don't confuse her with the facts.

Her mind is already made up.

[Exterminator]

Don't confuse her with the facts.

Her mind is already made up.

It just amazes me that her information about the "policies" about which she claims to object so fervently is so far removed from reality.  How can anyone be so consistently wrong?

[Henry Hawk]

FAIL!

Final numbers are in for the so-called "cash for clunkers" program, and by most measures, the program looks like a roaring success:

690,114 cars were purchased under the program; two-thirds of those bought by consumers were passenger cars.

The average rebate was $4,170.18, for a total of $2.878 billion. The rest of the $3 billion budget will cover administrative expenses.

The average new car bought with the rebates got 9.2 mpg more than the average clunker traded in, for an annual average fuel savings per driver of 277 gallons of fuel or about $720.

The Department of Transportation credits the program with saving 42,000 jobs in the auto industry and says it expects those jobs will be sustainable, because automakers have ramped up production to meet the clunkers demand.

Notably, 690,114 older cars were taken off the road, including 450,778 SUVs and other light trucks that likely lacked electronic stability control and other modern safety equipment. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has estimated that making ESC standard on new cars would save as many as 10,000 lives a year. This program has taken a significant step toward that goal.

After reading a few articles, it is possible it had both a positive and negative impact on the country. One big issue that the liberals keep washing aside is that it added to the national debt AND it gave foreign auto makers a much larger boost rather than the American auto makers. Out of the top 10 new vehicles purchased, only two were American.  Japanese and Korean car companies were the biggest winners of this whole program.


It DID give the auto industry a needed boost, after the taxpayers paid BILLIONS to bail them out just a few months prior to this...and it DID give a lift in the fuel efficient car business.


One thing is clear by several articles I read was that it WAS a administrative fiasco!  Our government underestimated how many people would apply and they assigned too few people to process applications.  Each clunker required dealer salespeople to complete 11 forms.  The online computer system was cheap; it ran very slow and often crashed causing further headaches.  Many dealers had to hire extra employees to cover for this.  And the big kicker of this is that as of the start of 2010 five month AFTER the program began; only $145 million of $1.9 billion in claims have so far been refunded to dealers.  It hurt many dealers who had to wait several months to get their money.


Another statistic I found on Wiki was that a study by researchers at the University of Michigan found that the program improved the average fuel economy of all vehicles purchased by 0.65 mpg.  Not all that stellar.
 
One more study also showed that the "effect was almost completely reversed in the 7 following months due to fewer cars sold, and found no evidence of effect on employment, house prices, or household default rates in cities with higher exposure."

So, once again, I think it was much ado about nothing...and proving that our government needs to butt out, at least that is MY "EMPERICAL" opinion.

Jane.........