okie wrote: I thought sarcasm was acceptable in these parts, Thomas?
Your sarcasm is perfectly acceptable, it's just not making sense to me -- there's nothing to be sarcastic about.
okie wrote:And maybe you could take the time to describe the difference to all of us here between a "projection" and a "prediction?" An okie would love to hear it. I will try to learn, Thomas. I am warning you though, I am under the pre-conceived notion that "scientists" are making these "predictions" or "projections" based on something.
To project is to extrapolate historic trends into the future. See Webster's relevant definition of projection: "9 : an estimate of future possibilities based on a current trend ". To predict, on the other hand, is to "foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason" (Webster). Predictions and projections, then, are both based on empirical evidence. But predictions state much more confidently than projections what the future will actually bring. Note the difference between "to fortell" and "to estimate future possibilities"
The scientists participating in the IPCC consistently label their statements about the future as "projections". They are careful not to oversell their message. The scientists at the IPCC are not a worthwile target for your sarcasm. Sensational journalism about the IPCC would be. They're the ones bringing all the spin into the global warming debate.
