Despite early snow, warmer-than-average winter predicted for Mi...

[Hardcore Tammy]

jcf817 wrote:

<quoted text>
For the millionth time...I have never claimed to have proof.

There is a lot of evidence that supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

My only concern is that scientific illiterates like yourself will gain control of the debate.

I have a theory you may fall in the bath tub tonight-so what????

Your fear is that you have no proof only hysteria. That is why more and more scientists and the general population know man made global waming is a scam

[Tank Murdoch]

Hardcore Tammy wrote:

<quoted text>
I have a theory you may fall in the bath tub tonight-so what????
Your fear is that you have no proof only hysteria. That is why more and more scientists and the general population know man made global waming is a scam

we ignored the global cooling scam of the 1970's and all is well. So ya think we should try that again and not kill the economy on shady fictious science.

[Darwinian]

Tank Murdoch wrote:

<quoted text>
we ignored the global cooling scam of the 1970's and all is well. So ya think we should try that again and not kill the economy on shady fictious science.

Back in the '70s, global cooling was hyped in some of the the popular media outlets while, AT THE SAME TIME, there were warnings about global warming in the peer reviewed science journals. You are making a false comparison.

[Tank Murdoch]

Darwinian wrote:

<quoted text>
Back in the '70s, global cooling was hyped in some of the the popular media outlets while, AT THE SAME TIME, there were warnings about global warming in the peer reviewed science journals. You are making a false comparison.

Exactly the same as we have right now, some scientists claim we are cooling and some say warming.

[Darwinian]

Tank Murdoch wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly the same as we have right now, some scientists claim we are cooling and some say warming.

Apparently, you do not understand that there is a difference between the popular media and peer-reviewed science journals.

[I wanna be the one]

Can I say it? I wanna be the one to throw out that over-used, completely moronic statement.
Ok, here goes,
Apparently you don't know the difference between weather and climate.

[Tank Murdoch]

Darwinian wrote:

<quoted text>
Apparently, you do not understand that there is a difference between the popular media and peer-reviewed science journals.

My facts are just too inconvenient for you-so you rely on making excuses and trying to re-write history.

[jcf817]

wbigs wrote:

But its OK when scientific illiterates that are using the argument for political gain are in control of the debate? Just as long as they are towing the liberal line?

I never said that. But how would a scientific-illiterate GW denier know if a GW believer is a scientific illiterate?

[jcf817]

Hardcore Tammy wrote:

<quoted text>
I have a theory you may fall in the bath tub tonight-so what????
Your fear is that you have no proof only hysteria. That is why more and more scientists and the general population know man made global waming is a scam

That's not a theory, it's a guess. Because you don't even know if I HAVE a bath tub.

But how do you know if the scientists' ideas are correct if you don't understand science?

[jcf817]

I wanna be the one wrote:

Can I say it? I wanna be the one to throw out that over-used, completely moronic statement.
Ok, here goes,
Apparently you don't know the difference between weather and climate.

Here's a question for you.

Let's say it's July, and Joe Mauer's batting average for the season so far is .364. What will his next at-bat produce?

[Tank Murdoch]

jcf817 wrote:

<quoted text>
I never said that. But how would a scientific-illiterate GW denier know if a GW believer is a scientific illiterate?

scientific-illiterate ?????

You have enough trouble trying to figure out the difference between theory and fact

[Tank Murdoch]

jcf817 wrote:

<quoted text>
That's not a theory, it's a guess. Because you don't even know if I HAVE a bath tub.
But how do you know if the scientists' ideas are correct if you don't understand science?

A theory is a guess

[jcf817]

Tank Murdoch wrote:

<quoted text>
A theory is a guess

Now you're just being obtuse. It has been explained many times to you the difference between a theory and a guess.

You see...someone who knows baseball would have a theory as to what Joe Mauer's next at bat would produce, because they see and understand the evidence of his ability. Someone who doesn't know baseball or understand the evidence of Joe's ability would only be guessing.

[Tank Murdoch]

jcf817 wrote:

<quoted text>
You see...someone who knows baseball would have a theory as to what Joe Mauer's next at bat would produce, because they see and understand the evidence of his ability.

Someone who doesn't know baseball or understand the evidence of Joe's ability would only be guessing.

Sure-we have an educated guess and a not so educated guess.

But ultimately in your example they are both just a guess.

I am sorry if that does not met the criteria for science or fact.

Being that you are an Art major I will cut you some slack

[I wanna be the one]

jcf817 wrote:

<quoted text>
Here's a question for you.
Let's say it's July, and Joe Mauer's batting average for the season so far is .364. What will his next at-bat produce?

Not sure but if his average the year before had been .363, I wouldn't see him as being a lot hotter this year.
Nice try but deebags like yourself shouldn't try to be cute.

[BMW and Gone]

I wanna be the one wrote:

<quoted text>
Not sure but if his average the year before had been .363, I wouldn't see him as being a lot hotter this year.
Nice try but deebags like yourself shouldn't try to be cute.

my turn;

When Joe Mauer steps up to the plate we can all guess (theory) he will get a hit, but we certainly do not know for sure(fact)he will get a hit.

[jcf817]

I wanna be the one wrote:

<quoted text>
Not sure but if his average the year before had been .363, I wouldn't see him as being a lot hotter this year.
Nice try but deebags like yourself shouldn't try to be cute.

I didn't ask you to assess his entire year, just predict what would happen in his next at-bat.

You people can't even understand a simple analogy. My goodness.

Furthermore, someone who follows baseball very closely, digging into the stats of pitchers and the minutae of the different types of at-bats Joe Mauer has had would have an even better idea than just a casual fan of baseball. So...his decision is based on knowledge and understanding.

[jcf817]

BMW and Gone wrote:

<quoted text>
my turn;
When Joe Mauer steps up to the plate we can all guess (theory) he will get a hit, but we certainly do not know for sure(fact)he will get a hit.

But let's say you don't understand baseball. How can you even hypothesize what might happen? i.e. he strikes out, but still gets on base? His average tells you that it's a very good chance he'll get on base. But you might look deeper and see how he's fared against the pitcher he's facing...or with runners in scoring position...or....any number of factors. In other words, the more information you have and the more you understand the information, the more likely you are to be correct.

[Grey and Wise]

jcf817 wrote:

<quoted text>
But let's say you don't understand baseball. How can you even hypothesize what might happen? i.e. he strikes out, but still gets on base? His average tells you that it's a very good chance he'll get on base. But you might look deeper and see how he's fared against the pitcher he's facing...or with runners in scoring position...or....any number of factors. In other words, the more information you have and the more you understand the information, the more likely you are to be correct.

You are right; chances, could be or maybe does equate to science or fact.

You can understand baseball as well as anyone on the planet. You still can't predict with 100% accuracy if a ballplayer even like Mauer will get a hit.

Study up on theories. Then study up on Fact/Science.

Don't do it for yourself do it for your kids

[Grey and Wise]

jcf817 wrote:

<quoted text>
I didn't ask you to assess his entire year, just predict what would happen in his next at-bat.
.....

This is where you are stuck.

a "prediction" is just a guess. It is not fact or science.

So being you now know a prediction is just a guess that should give you a clue its just a theory.