[johnforbes]

Apparently a mixture of coffee, diminished cognitive capability, and lazy leftism.

[johnforbes]

good points all

[johnforbes]

Indeed, sir.

[elklindo69]

Forbestaro's stupidity is not a false certitude...

LMAO

:lol:

[johnforbes]

But little Elkindolt is not laughing.

Nor can Elkindope discuss the history of science, which he has never read.

[Clownkicker]

^^^^There's johnfabulist claiming someone else can't do what he has never done: discuss the history of science.

johnfagin has never been able to give a single example of this supposed "false certitude" of science, not a one.

All johnfarctate can do is repeat the same droning nonsense without ever discussing anything.



johforbes is stupid.

[johnforbes]

Clownscrawy is no Charles Atlas of political discourse.

No, Clownflabber is a 98 pound weakling.

[Clownkicker]

I thought I was supposed to have a 60 inch waist, you imbecile.

And don't think we didn't notice that you still can't give us a single example of supposed scientific "false certitude".

You are utterly incapable of discussing the history of science.
You can't because you're an ignoramus.


johnforbes is stupid.

[johnforbes]

Yes, Clownflabber does have a 60 inch waist.

The waste skin from his waist does indeed weight 97 pounds.

Anybody who had read a history of science would know that science evolved through many instances of false certitude.

E.g, the "eppur si muove" scenario.

[Clownkicker]

johnny brings up an example that shows just the opposite of what he pretends is true.

Galileo knew the Earth revolved around the sun.
The Catholic Church also knew the Earth revolved around the sun at the same time they were insisting Galileo recant his science.
No one had any doubts about the truth of the matter.

Science was correct and morons like johnforbes who would rather play politics are the only ones with an actual false certitude.
The only false certitude in this case was the lies told by the Church.
It pretended to be certain of something it knew to be untrue.
Religion is the actual case of false certitude. Not science.

Try again, johnny, you sorry excuse for a man.

[elklindo69]

Forbestaro and fellow conservatives pull out the shuck and jive "I'm not a scientist" routine as a means to avoid the reality.

Mitch McConnell claims that he's not a scientist when confronted about global warming. Then when the UN report came out with the global warming, he claims that it's all a hoax. It's pure hypocrisy. The GOP knows very well that global warming is at least partially attributed to man made activities. But since the GOP receives about 10 times more in contributions from the oil and gas industries than do the democrats, can you really blame them for the denials. And claiming "I'm not a scientist" is just a way to save face.

Republicans vote on infrastructure projects even though they are not civil engineers. Or financial industry regulations even though they are not economists.

Policymakers don't need to have the expertise to vote on legislation that is outside of their circle of knowledge. Oh what the heck, how many bills have the GOP signed off on that was written verbatim by the NRA, or by other lobbyists, you get the point.

[johnforbes]

You could add Elkindolt to Clownsucker and not end up with one person with even an undergrad degree in any science-related field.

Yes, Clownflabber does have a 60 inch waist.

The waste skin from his waist does indeed weight 97 pounds.

Anybody who had read a history of science would know that science evolved through many instances of false certitude.

E.g, the "eppur si muove" scenario.

[elklindo69]

You could add Elkindolt to Clownsucker and not end up with one person with even an undergrad degree in any science-related field.

Yes, Clownflabber does have a 60 inch waist.

The waste skin from his waist does indeed weight 97 pounds.

Anybody who had read a history of science would know that science evolved through many instances of false certitude.

E.g, the "eppur si muove" scenario.

Scientific knowledge progresses through the scientific process not some pseudointellectual hypothesis called "false certitude."

Forbestardo is now running against Justme for the village idiot of the year!!!

:lol:

[johnforbes]

Elkin, are you really that stupid?

You really should read a history of science.

Your ignorance is shocking.

[Clownkicker]

johnforbes, are you really that stupid?

You really need to understand the history of science.

Your ignorance is shocking.

Scientist Galileo told us the Earth revolves around the sun.
Nearly 400 years later we still accept this as fact.

Where is the supposed "false certitude" of science in this case?
johnforbes likely sneers at people who simply dismiss those who believe the Earth is the center of the universe.
After all, how can we know for certain?
Certitude concerning this scientific fact would be foolish to johnny.

But johnforbes is utterly incapable of a discussion of the history of science, which he will prove with another of his copy-and-paste turds.

[johnforbes]

But the status quo say the opposite.

Traditional science had false certitude.

Surely even Clownsucker can't be too stupid to understand?

It is, by now, crystal clear that Clownhacker never read a history of science, or even a comic strip.

[Clownkicker]

So now it's "traditional science", by which you mean religion, astrology, and alchemy, not actual science.

Way to go, johnny, you dimwit.:lol:

So when are you going to post an example of false certitude in science and not just the false certitude of voodoo?

You won't because you can't.
You may have read a history of science but you didn't understand it, obviously.

[elklindo69]

But the status quo say the opposite.

Traditional science had false certitude.

Surely even Clownsucker can't be too stupid to understand?

It is, by now, crystal clear that Clownhacker never read a history of science, or even a comic strip.

What the heck is the difference between "science" and "traditional science?"

So I'll ask Forbestardo for an example of a scientific false certitude....

Anything???

[johnforbes]

Traditional scientific orthodoxy opposed the new info set out by Galileo.

Thus he was called on the carpet.

He was correct, but scientific orthodoxy at the time didn't think so.

The entire history of science is littered with examples of such false certitude, and Elkin and Clown are very remarkably stupid not to know that.

[Clownkicker]

johnny, no one argues that there hasn't been "false certitude" in human history, or even that there have not been cases of "false certitude" involved in scientific history. As you know perfectly well, what is being argued is that the "false certitude" was never on the part of science.

The whole point of all your dishonest nonsense is to conflate the reliability of scientific knowledge being applied to climate change with the reliability of religious and superstitious beliefs of pre-scientific days. They are not equally reliable, and you know it, and you don't care. That makes you intellectually bankrupt.

In order to avoid taking prudent actions to stop the climatological freight train bearing down on the human race, you're trying to argue that the views of climate scientists should carry no more weight than the superstitious beliefs of past mystics and politicians. johnforbes is doing today what the Catholic Church did centuries ago. He doesn't like what science is telling him so he tries to discredit the messengers in an attempt to keep his gravy train running at least until he dies.
"Screw the rest of humanity." right, johnny?

johnforbes also attempts to make it appear that prudent steps taken by the world's governments look like mere foolishness because "climate change theory could be wrong."
What are the odds, johnny? Is there a 10% chance it's wrong? Is there a 25% chance it's wrong? Is there a 50% chance it's wrong? At what point does the likelihood warrant taking action, johnny? At what point does taking action stop being "foolish" and become "prudent"?

johnforbes tries to make it look as though climate scientists hold a "false certitude" that the planet is warming due in part to human behaviors when if fact the "false certitude" is on the other side of the issue. Look at RealTool's representative and wholey ignorant statement on the issue: "...to pretend man can has (sic) influence over nature is insane, we can't even make it rain in California to cure the draught (sic)." <---Now THAT'S what I call "false certitude".
Does johnforbes call RealTool on his unfounded false certitude because he has no degree in climate science? Of course not. johnforbes is the worst kind of hypocrite. His hypocrisy could actually harm people.

Though he claims, like every other windbag, that he isn't an expert in climate science, johnforbes scoffs at any attempts to slow an oncoming disaster because there might be some slim chance the experts are wrong or partly wrong.

johnforbes is stupid.

[johnforbes]

But I have never written a history of science, nor will I.

I have, however, read a history of science, and Clownsucker should do so himself.

The Inquisition represented traditional science orthodoxy of that time. As does, today, man-caused global warming.

Rational skepticism of both was and is warranted.

Granted, this point is too subtle for Lucky and Elkin to understand.