ceteris ex paribus
The back-and-forth has gotten a bit long, so I’ve posted this here.
You state that it is “up to the scientists” to determine what is “empirical evidence”.
Wrong.
It is “up to the scientists” to search for, find and report “empirical evidence” to back up any hypotheses they happen to be supporting or espousing.
It is the prerogative of the rational skeptic of a hypothesis to insist on such “empirical evidence” before accepting the validity of the hypothesis..
“Empirical evidence” is fairly well defined (according to the scientific method) as “physical observations or reproducible experimentation”.
It is NOT the output of computer model simulations based on theoretical deliberations.
And it is what is lacking to support the IPCC CAGW hypothesis that most of the warming of the last half century has been caused by human GHG emissions (primarily CO2) and that this represents a serious potential threat for humanity and our environment.
This hypothesis has yet to be corroborated by empirical evidence – so it remains an uncorroborated hypothesis.
This is why we need to remain “open minded” to any empirical evidence that is found and reported (contrary to the advice of Naomi Oreskes).
Max