The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Bette Midler tweet: “Dec. 22, 2015, 63 degrees in NYC. I would like to thank the ignorant selfish climate deniers for all their goodwill toward the planet.”

To which I'd like to reply: "Bette, you can sing but not think."

What is she bitching about she's from Hawaii.... :lol:

I would like to thank the ignorant selfish climate deniers for all their goodwill toward the planet.”

Typical Cadillac Elitist, where the hell has her goodwill toward the planet been? I bet she evens, staffs, heats and cools her 3 mansions when she's not in them...just in case she wants to drop by. Goodwill toward the planet :lol: :lol: :lol:

What is it with you morons and celebrities?

Celebrities are not climate scientists.
Tweets are not climate science.
Ridiculing celebrities does nothing to bolster your ignorant position on climate change.
Ridiculing celebrities does nothing to discredit actual climate scientists or climate science.

To make such idiotic posts on the subject as if they are meaningful in some way, or even clever, only makes fools of the lot of you stupid fucks. :lol:

Clownslacker seems to be saying that tweets are not science, and that many celebs are idiots.

I concur.

You're half way there to recognizing your own stupidity, johnny.

Now all you need to do is realize that nobody cares whether or not Midler can think, and nobody here even cares whether or not she can sing.
Then you'll begin to realize your handlers are dragging you around by the nose and stuffing your head into their trough of slop for their benefit, not yours.

But really, what else can we expect from a lot of low information voters who decide their vote based on bathroom habits of a candidate, mindless speculation, and internet gossip of celebrities?

Once again Clown takes the long way home.

I wonder if Clown even bothers to read his bullshit before he posts it :lol:

Yes, it's a tediously long trip sometimes dragging you clowns kicking, screaming, and drooling into the light of understanding, but that's the price I must pay to get simple ideas through your thick skulls.
It's one step at a time when dealing with the dimwitted.

No need to thank me. Mitigating your ignorance is its own reward.

So why is it you can never refute a thing I say if it's "bullshit"? :lol:

I rest my case :lol:

You must first "make a case" before you can "rest a case", silly. :lol:

A prima facie case for Bette's stupidity, and Clownslacker's, has already been made.

The People rest.

I was out in NYC on Xmass day in shorts and a t shirt. I suppose that's evidence which will debunk the rightie theories on global cooling?

Yep.....No unusual climatic events going on at all.

:lol:

Yeah Elk....That's only evidence someone stole your luggage :lol:

The history of science is littered with examples of the problems inherent in allowing some partisan group to hijack a scientific theory.

Al Gore, with his C average in media studies, is hardly a scientist.

More importantly, as the Galileo incident proved, it is dangerous to assume that the Scientific Establishment is correct.

It may be, or it may not be.

The Left today is busily calling any doubters "stupid" on anthropogenic global warming. But what scientic credentials do most advocates have? None.

Obama's entire academic record, SAT and LSAT scores, courses taken, whether he entered as an international diversity student, it is all secret.

You could take the scientific credentials of Biden, Pelosi, Reid, Elkin, and Clownhacker, and the total would be zero.

As we see once again, johnforbes is nothing but an ignorant troll.

That's is why he repeats this stupidity that has no basis in reality year after year.
At the same time he will refuse to discuss any point raised by another poster that disproves what he says.

This is the greatest reason (of several) to ignore his idiocy, as it is with any troll.

At the same time he will refuse to discuss any point raised by another poster that disproves what he says.

Clown....elk walking the Great White Way on Xmas Day in his shorts is hardly scientific proof :lol:

OK, you ReTards.........Scientists are in the business of sciencing. They generally just report, and then leave the activisms up to the activists.

Alas, that's not true.

The Scientific Establishment now, just as in Galileo's time, has its own interests, and they include financial interests and a vested interest in controlling what is taught in schools, etc.

In Galileo's time, there was a prevailing wisdom and it happened to be totally wrong.

The conventional wisdom was also wrong before Newton and before Einstein and before Gregor Mendel and in many, many other famous instances.

So only ignorant people say today, well, scientists believe "X" is true, so we must all accept it.

Critical thinking is a crucial part of a real scientific outlook.

"In Galileo's time, there was a prevailing wisdom..."-dishonestjohn

johnny's dishonesty shows its ugly face here where he pretends that the "prevailing wisdom" of religious fanatics is at all comparable to a scientific consensus of today. He pretends astronomers twisting themselves into mathematical pretzels to explain the paths of the planets in the sky to make them conform to religious dogma is a "prevailing wisdom".
It wasn't "wisdom". It was just the best they could do with the tools at their disposal and with religion shackling their minds.
Galileo makes some better tools and "viola!" Better ideas.
Incidentally, Galileo was under no threat from scientists of his day, not even those who disagreed with him.
It was religious nuts who caused the trouble.

Then johnny dishonestly uses the term "conventional wisdom" to pretend that the very limited knowledge of lay people two or three hundred years ago is at all comparable to a scientific consensus as we know it today.
In fact, johnny's attempt to conflate modern "scientific consensus" with "conventional wisdom" only exhibits his gross misunderstanding of the two terms.

"So only ignorant people say today, well, scientists believe "X" is true, so we must all accept it."-johnfibber

Nobody is saying that, johnny. Like the Flat Earthers or the creationists with their museums showing humans and dinosaurs walking side by side, you are free to accept anything you like, and you won't be killed by some scientist for it. (Unlike the case with many religious folk.) But to pretend that those who believe such nonsense are on a par with today's scientific consensus on those matters is moronic.
And to pretend we must show the same skepticism toward those who believe the Earth is a globe as we do toward those who believe it is flat is just idiotic.
There are degrees of certainty in science. Pretending the degree of scientific certainty today is the same as the degree of scientific certainty of 350 years ago makes you an utter fool.

johnforbes isn't rationally skeptical of the scientific consensus on climate change because he has a rash of evidence that stands contrary to the consensus.
No, he is 'skeptical' because he simply doesn't like what it means to him personally. He might have to actually change his way of living for the good of his grandchildren and others around the world.
Never mind that he has never in his life seen 70 degree days in Virginia in the middle of December.
It doesn't mean a thing to him and only makes him more 'skeptical' of those who tell him he might be partly responsible for it.

I look forward to Insipid showing up to castigate johnforbes for the silly word games he plays. :lol:

The history of science is something Clownslacker has not read.

Thus, his ignorance of it is on full display.

In an ideal world, of course science would proceed in a neutral manner with no attention paid to anything but empirical confirmation of this or that theory.

But the history of science shows that many a theory can go forward for a very long time and be wrong.

Look at Lysenko, for example, or the position of biology prior to Darwin and Spencer.

Look at the fact that Euclid dominated for many centuries, but was dramatically wrong in some critical ways.

Newton was the monarch...until he wasn't.

Nobody knows whether anthropogenic climate change is correct or not.

It may be, and Al Gore may turn out to have been correct.

But maybe not.

It is skepticism which is rational, and scientific.

All the predictions by the "man made" global warming idiots have been proven wrong and their data debunked so I don't understand why there are some still clinging to the old talking points. When ever I find myself near someone with Global Warmingtitis of the mouth I move away from the idiot, thankfully there are less of them every day as reasoning finally seeps into their little brains.

So....according to Johnnie, science is inherently wrong, and only the myths of medieval man (and current day conservatives) is correct. Have I got that right, JohnnieBoy?

johnforbes wrote:Alas, that's not true.

The Scientific Establishment now, just as in Galileo's time, has its own interests, and they include financial interests and a vested interest in controlling what is taught in schools, etc.

In Galileo's time, there was a prevailing wisdom and it happened to be totally wrong.

The conventional wisdom was also wrong before Newton and before Einstein and before Gregor Mendel and in many, many other famous instances.

So only ignorant people say today, well, scientists believe "X" is true, so we must all accept it.

Critical thinking is a crucial part of a real scientific outlook.

There was no "Scientific Establishment" in Galileo's time. People who postulated the theories behind observed natural phenomena were philosophers, not scientists. Philosophers used logic and critical thinking, not the scientific method to explain natural phenomena.

Scientists conduct research, publish papers, and their work goes through peer review.

Peer review is the ultimate acid test. A scientist's work, in order to be validated, needs to be reproduced by other scientists.

Right wingers claim that global warming is a hoax, even though the scientific consensus says otherwise. Right wingers are free to publish data to the contrary...

Elk are you saying you're going to be in Time Square on New Year's Eve in your underwear....again! :lol:

It is ALWAYS correct to be skeptical when a politician orders you to accept a scientific theory.

This is particularly true when those adamant politicians are notably devoid of any scientific credentials themselves.

What degree in science does Obama have? None. Heck, even the courses he took remain sealed in mystery. Why?

There was indeed a Scientific Establishment, and just as today it was part of Establishment thinking in general.

As long ago as the pre-Socratics, there were empiricists, and that reposes at the heart of science.

It takes little effort to discern in Aristotle some of the same spirit, and empiricism took off in the 13th Century (Roger Bacon et al.).

It is certainly true that peer review is the acid test, but it is also true that the entire history of science shows how the temper of the time colors research.

It is ALWAYS correct to be skeptical when a politician orders you to accept a scientific theory.

You're an idiot, JohnnyBoy.

Every time Forbestardo types something, it's fucking stupid...

"It is ALWAYS correct to be skeptical when a politician orders you to accept a scientific theory."-johnforbes

That's the first thing you've said that makes any sense at all, but being skeptical of politicians and their motives is not the same as being skeptical of scientific consensus to the same degree.

Politician Truman didn't need to have a degree in physics in order to decide to make a political choice based on the science of the atomic bomb in a time of crisis. He made a radical choice that I suspect you agree with.
Being properly skeptical of politicians isn't an excuse to sit back and do nothing about impending crisis.
It certainly doesn't justify your constant poo-pooing everything people are trying to do unless you are putting forth some alternatives. And simply saying you aren't personally convinced of the science doesn't mean nobody anywhere in the world should do anything.
Even those who subscribe to the science won't agree on all the political decisions made based on the science.
That's life.

You may argue the politics as much as you like. As you said yourself, you don't have a degree in climate science either.
If you're saying that disqualifies you from having a valid opinion on the politics, then we won't argue with you.
You know what your opinion is worth.
But we don't have to agree with you.

I notice one person cited actual figures from the history of science.

Me.

Neither Elkin nor Clown were able to mention, or discuss, even one example in the history of science where it was wise to allow a politician to try to dictate scientific theory.

Only one person has run out of rational arguments here.

You.

What you need to show us is an example in history where ignoring what science is telling us was the right thing to do and saved us from calamity, the way you are insisting the world should do now.

You, Clown, need to explain why the illustrious scientists whose opinions you revere so much had to fabricate the data they were reporting. False data dude.

You, Clown, need to explain how raising taxes on US will fix global warming.
(Read "raising taxes" as increasing living expense in any multitude of ways.)

And when all is said and done, you, Clown, will need to explain where all that "unaccounted for" :lol: money went, with global warming still unaffected.

Oh yeah it is not missing, gone. It is simply unaccounted for.....right.

The global warming hysterics can't explain anything. It's all emotion driven knee jerk reactions. It's all about reducing the U.S. to third world shit hole status to be administered by all knowing, compassionate liberal elites.

Dogzilla, come on.

You call me an "idiot"?

I'd be delighted to compare not only IQ scores, but academic degrees earned, with you.

More to the point, I've cited actual scientists in history and mentioned the struggles they had with the prevailing wisdom of their day.

These are actual historical examples which nobody can dispute.

It is NEVER a good idea to let some politician preach science to you.

A reasonable person is ALWAYS skeptical when politicians with zero science training themselves start preaching science.

The only problem is, johnny, that it's SCIENTISTS who are preaching the science of climate change and you're simply choosing to ignore them.

That's what you can't seem to understand. And all your degrees and worthless trivia only accentuate your idiocy because they were all for nothing. You still can't think.

A list of scientists who had political problems with people just like you doesn't help your case either.

So, JohnnyBoy......How do you suggest that we KNOW the point at which the information that scientists come up with becomes FACT? Is it only when YOU say so? Or....is there some committee that decides? Give us a hint as to how we should determine.

Boy?

Come on, Dog, you were in diapers when I was in Vietnam.

What book supports your viewpoint that politicians should dictate scientific theory?

Do you know Kepler's story?

Tycho's?

Ever heard of Giordano Bruno?

Ever heard of Lysenko before this forum?

Not true, JohnnieBoy......I'm probably older than you, but....I need to see your long form birth certificate, just to make sure.

Say, where is that ice age that was supposed to have ended human life by now? You know the one....it was confidently predicted by the parents of the current crop of climate hysterics.

In YOUR area, it was only the INTELLIGENT life that was wiped out.

What does it say when even insurance companies try to reduce risk caused by climate change? When I look at the huge payouts made by the insurance companies because of climate caused damage, I foresee the day when weather related damage will not be covered in your home-owners policy.

http://www.treehugger.com/corporate-res ... scape.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Neither Dogzilla nor Clown have cited one historical scientist in support of their theory that politicians ought to say which scientific theory is true.

Time and science should decide that, not some bloated fool like Gore.

JohnnyBoy......Are you suggesting that politicians should get a degree in the subject for which they speak? Does Trump have a degree in Geography? In Masonry or Construction? Does Cruz have a degree in gynecology or childhood developement? Is one of YOUR degrees in Proctology?

Of course, johnforbes is simply lying when he claims I believe politicians should decide which scientific theory is true.
Lying is all his ilk has to attempt to save face when he makes a fool of himself.
I made an entire post explaining my position on politicians, but johnny is too arrogant and ignorant to read anyone's posts but his own.

johnforbes has yet to name one historical scientist in support of his theory that simply ignoring what science was telling us was the right thing to do and saved us from calamity, the way he is insisting the world should do now.

A little cautionary tale for all you children out there...


When johnforbes was a young child, he wandered out into the middle of the street.
His mother shouted "johnny, get out of the street. It's dangerous! You'll get run over!"

But johnforbes is no fool.
He wisely stood out there with a "wait and see" attitude to learn if his mother's "conventional wisdom" about roads was really true before making any rash decisions.
After all, his mother didn't have an engineering degree in building roads and she had never seen anyone actually get run over. What did she know? She was always telling him what to do.


Tragically, we all see the results of johnny's 'wise' inquiries.
After being struck by a car and suffering brain damage, johnny never was quite the same. He's lucky to be alive at all.
And though he wasn't too bright before the accident, now he's a fucking moron.

It is true that one summer I worked as a laborer on the roads.

Even put on my application for college that I had been a "Roads Scholar."

LOL

I'll give it to Johnny....he IS funny sometimes.