http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_science

An observational science is a science where it is not possible to construct controlled experiments in the area under study. For example, in astronomy, it is not possible to create or manipulate stars or galaxies in order to observe what happens. Other examples of necessarily observational sciences include geology, paleontology, epidemiology, and much of the social sciences.

Other fields of scientific study can have observational as well as experimental aspects. In high-energy physics, for example, some interactions involving energies higher than can be created in any experiment can be observed indirectly through astronomical observations.

To substitute for the inability to directly construct experiments as part of the scientific method, two main strategies are used. First, multivariate statistical techniques allow the approximation of experimental control with statistical control. Secondly, experimental observations of previously-unobserved phenomena can be used to suggest new hypotheses and test existing ones. This can be seen as making use of pre-existing "natural experiments".

In the social sciences, sociology and economics are generally held to be examples of observational sciences, because of the impracticality (not to mention dubious ethical status) of manipulating whole societies or economies for experimental purposes. However, microeconomics can be regarded as an experimental science, because it is possible to set up experimental micro-economies.

Sometimes fields of study can change from being observational to being experimental: for example, until the early 21st century, the study of comets was entirely observational -- it became experimental when the first man-made cometary collision was engineered in 2005.

Maqqa wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 5:57pm:

If the supposed science of Climate change had any semblance of ligitimacy, its observations, like other sciences, would create models far superior to what climate science can muster.

progressiveslol wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 6:02pm:



EXACTLY

How can they create a "Carbon Emissions" model when they don't know who the top 10 carbon emitting organisms are (including humans)

If they don't know this question then how do they know how much humans are contributing to the equation ie 1%, 10% or 50%

This is why peer review fails. The Observation might be correct but the assumptions are wrong therefore leads to wrong conclusions

For example if the assumption is humans contribute 50% to carbon emissions then we have to take action

But if humans only contribute 1% then actions will be futile

Frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn.

You all deserve each other!

cods wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 6:35pm:

You saw it on the news with a fearmonger campaign because there is clear debate in Australia and Australians want what the science feels is proof of AGW. They dont have what the Australians need, so fearmonger away.

cods wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 6:35pm:



It's all good cods

You'll notice how the lefties have not had the guts to post the articles you mentioned

They know if they mention Gillard's IPCC I would absolutely tear the argument a part because committee members are Gillard, Swan, Brown, Milne, Oakshott and Windsor with their advisory group headed by Garnaut

Maqqa wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 7:30pm:

Gee, name calling now, are you?

Pity your memory is fading with age and you can't recall all those ocassions where I have said clearly that 99% of all pollies are as useful as tits on a bull.

That should tell any sane person, that Ia m Pro no Political party!

But, you knew that already, didn't you, Mrs SPIN!

Btw, you wouldn't know a fact, if it bit you on the arse.

Maqqa wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 7:48pm: