Hurricanes defying conventional science.

My question for you is.. So what? You even said its a still growing area of science, after all this time reading this board you expect us to gasp in horror, at the idea that something in science didn't work exactly as thought?come on rand you should know better, do we have to keep repeating science isn't perfect in every thread?yes they didn't follow the models, as I said so what? we make some new ones and test them, if they work, good if they don't, they don't.. that if you havn't guessed it, is science in actionedit:to correct some typos This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 12-05-2005 12:02 AM

What are you talking about? meteorology isn't science? someone tell all those future students of meteorology, that they should learn something else because suddenly the only thing thats science is evolution according to randman!now come on man, science is science, science doens't equal evolution and evolution doesn't equal science, you know this stop being evasive{ABE by the way I mean talking about evolution as being the subject when i say science, when in this case i mean meteorology which is a scienceThis message has been edited by ReverendDG, 12-05-2005 12:12 AM

How am I being a jerk? I'm stating that i don't understand why you posted this like you did, or why you are making a big deal about the fact that they don't fit current models. When infact i'm telling you that in meteorology, like all sciences models may or may not work, so if one doesn't work its not a devistating blow to the science in question I get it fine, but I still wonder if you understand how science works, and the fact that they don't follow the model doesn't matter as much as you think it doesBtw how does insulting me help anything?