[SampleMan]

You simply don't know what you're talking about, and its probably pointless to try to straighten you out. You dismiss what you are admittedly ignorant of, but then revisit it to claim that you do know it and that I'm wrong. You're just spouting fertilizer.

You claim to be a master of scientific definitions, but show no sense that you are misapplying them.

Tell you what, as you are so certain of climatology, take your money and go to Vegas when the December forecast for the next Hurricane season comes out. Place all your money on them being correct within a 10% margin of error.

I have a theory that you'll be walking home, and at least my theory is testable.

[spunkets]

"You simply don't know what you're talking about,"

If that was the case, then you could show how that was so.

"Tell you what, as you are so certain of climatology, take your money and go to Vegas when the December forecast for the next Hurricane season comes out. Place all your money on them being correct within a 10% margin of error."

You understand the theories behind the models, what the models are capable of, or statistical nature of the processes involved.

" I have a theory that you'll be walking home, and at least my theory is testable."

You still don't know what the word theory means.