I would of said .... Kammy, when you say "fixed" I'm thinking the 1919 World Series.....
would of gotten a blank stare
Dear Mr. Dunce Boy. Read the bottom tweet in the tweet thread. It’s not that hard.BDKJMU wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 8:12 pmYou already posted that tweet-it was the one I was responding to
RCP is using the same polls they used in 2020. The majority aren’t ‘right aligned’, but go ahead and believe whatever leftist drivel you want claiming that Trump isn’t WAY ahead of where he was 8 and 4 years ago if it makes you feel better for the next 20 days lol:
Not going to spend hours doing that. We’ll see who is proven right in less than 3 weeks.kalm wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 9:29 pmDear Mr. Dunce Boy. Read the bottom tweet in the tweet thread. It’s not that hard.BDKJMU wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2024 8:12 pm
You already posted that tweet-it was the one I was responding to
RCP is using the same polls they used in 2020. The majority aren’t ‘right aligned’, but go ahead and believe whatever leftist drivel you want claiming that Trump isn’t WAY ahead of where he was 8 and 4 years ago if it makes you feel better for the next 20 days lol:
Post a list of RCP’s 2020 and 2024 polls used.
Is RCP using the same numbers as ‘22 when there was going to be a red wave?
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
This why you get duped all the time. You really don't understand science.
obviously, you can tinker with the models until it produces the desired result and I've never seen any of these climate guys discussing the models they use in any detailSeattleGriz wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 4:06 pmThis why you get duped all the time. You really don't understand science.
Let me explain it to you. A scientist comes up with a theory. That theory is then applied to the subject at hand. If the theory's results differ vastly from what truly happened, they go back to the drawing board to retool and make the theory stronger.
All we have seen are hilariously bad predictions out of the climate change crowd and an outright refusal to discuss why they are incorrect.
Exactly. They know where their bread is buttered.Caribbean Hen wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 4:50 pmobviously, you can tinker with the models until it produces the desired result and I've never seen any of these climate guys discussing the models they use in any detailSeattleGriz wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 4:06 pm
This why you get duped all the time. You really don't understand science.
Let me explain it to you. A scientist comes up with a theory. That theory is then applied to the subject at hand. If the theory's results differ vastly from what truly happened, they go back to the drawing board to retool and make the theory stronger.
All we have seen are hilariously bad predictions out of the climate change crowd and an outright refusal to discuss why they are incorrect.
Remember when you were dismissing the hockey stick graph?SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 4:06 pmThis why you get duped all the time. You really don't understand science.
Let me explain it to you. A scientist comes up with a theory. That theory is then applied to the subject at hand. If the theory's results differ vastly from what truly happened, they go back to the drawing board to retool and make the theory stronger.
All we have seen are hilariously bad predictions out of the climate change crowd and an outright refusal to discuss why they are incorrect.
Right? They never discuss the models in detail at all!Caribbean Hen wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 4:50 pmobviously, you can tinker with the models until it produces the desired result and I've never seen any of these climate guys discussing the models they use in any detailSeattleGriz wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 4:06 pm
This why you get duped all the time. You really don't understand science.
Let me explain it to you. A scientist comes up with a theory. That theory is then applied to the subject at hand. If the theory's results differ vastly from what truly happened, they go back to the drawing board to retool and make the theory stronger.
All we have seen are hilariously bad predictions out of the climate change crowd and an outright refusal to discuss why they are incorrect.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
What predictions did the hockey stick produce? I'm sure I'll be waiting for a long time on this one as you make your usual appeal to authority.kalm wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 6:57 pmRemember when you were dismissing the hockey stick graph?SeattleGriz wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 4:06 pm
This why you get duped all the time. You really don't understand science.
Let me explain it to you. A scientist comes up with a theory. That theory is then applied to the subject at hand. If the theory's results differ vastly from what truly happened, they go back to the drawing board to retool and make the theory stronger.
All we have seen are hilariously bad predictions out of the climate change crowd and an outright refusal to discuss why they are incorrect.
Good times!
tell us about Albedo and how something that is not understood is incorporated into the climate modelskalm wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 6:59 pmRight? They never discuss the models in detail at all!Caribbean Hen wrote: ↑Thu Oct 17, 2024 4:50 pm
obviously, you can tinker with the models until it produces the desired result and I've never seen any of these climate guys discussing the models they use in any detail
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
...that's pretty sure, since he never went anywhere...
..bullshit, they'd just have to do it with an AR - in accordance with custom and all that...Bobcat wrote: ↑Fri Oct 18, 2024 11:16 am Cant arm anyone in public schools, liberals wouldnt be able to abort kids anymore and school shootings would stop in a week.
You dont even really need to arm anyone, just run an ad campaign saying you are. People are incredibly stupid and would buy it the same way they did the coronavirus lie