Newsweek's Sharon Begley, who earlier this week had the unscientific gall to blame the Midwest floods on global warming, continues to offend more and more people with her every keystroke.
The object of her current disaffection, comedian/magician Penn Jillette, isn't taking her affront lying down. In fact, he published a response at the Los Angeles Times Thursday to her recent attack on his global warming skepticism.
To set this up, here's what Begley posted at her Lab Notes blog last Friday concerning June's "Amazing Meeting" conference sponsored by the James Randi Educational Foundation (emphasis added throughout, h/t Reason):
Penn and Teller did a q&a with the audience the day before Teller alone spilled the beans on spoon bending, and one question yielded a surprising answer. Someone asked Penn whether he still believed that man-made climate change is bunk, as he has said more than once. Penn's basic answer was: I loathe everything about Al Gore, so since Gore has been crusading against climate change it must be garbage.
Now, Penn & Teller’s terrific “Bull****,” now beginning its sixth season on Showtime, has debunked psychics such as John Edward, feng shui, acupuncture and other forms of pseudoscience and the paranormal. But here was Penn, a great friend to the skeptic community, basically saying, don’t bother me with scientific evidence, I’m going to make up my mind about global warming based on my disdain for Al Gore. (Both Penn and Teller are well-known libertarians and supporters of the libertarian Cato Institute, which has been one of the leaders in spreading doubt about global warming.) Which just goes to show, not even the most hard-nosed empiricists and skeptics are immune from the power of emotion to make us believe stupid things.
This didn't sit well with Jillette who chose to set the record straight about what happened in Vegas last month (emphasis added):
During our loose Q&A period this year, someone asked us about global warming, or climate change, or however they're branding it now. Teller and I were both silent on stage for a bit too long, and then I said I didn't know.
I elaborated on "I don't know" quite a bit. I said that Al Gore was so annoying (that's scientifically provable, right?) that I really wanted to doubt anything he was hyping, but I just didn't know. I also emphasized that really smart friends, who knew a lot more than me, were convinced of global warming. I ended my long-winded rambling (I most often have a silent partner) very clearly with "I don't know." I did that because ... I don't know. Teller chimed in with something about Gore's selling of "indulgences" being BS, and then said he didn't know either. Penn & Teller don't know jack about global warming ... next question.
The next day, I heard that one of the non-famous, non-groovy, non-scientist speakers had used me as an example of someone who let his emotions make him believe things that are wrong. [...]
Later, I was asked about a Newsweek blog she wrote. Reading it bugged me more than hearing about it. [...]Is there no ignorance allowed on this one subject? I took my children to see the film "Wall-E." This wonderful family entertainment opens with the given that mankind destroyed Earth. You can't turn on the TV without seeing someone hating ourselves for what we've done to the planet and preaching the end of the world. Maybe they're right, but is there no room for "maybe"? There's a lot of evidence, but global warming encompasses a lot of complicated points: Is it happening? Did we cause it? Is it bad? Can we fix it? Is government-forced conservation the only way to fix it?
Yes, Penn, as far as folks like Begley are concerned, this is a moral imperative. In fact, this paragraph in her blog post about the meeting in Vegas says it best:
My small contribution [to the conference] was a talk arguing that skeptics should not count on the press to enlist in their debunking crusade, something that also extends to the fight between evolution and creationism. So as not to bore you with the whole 30-minute speech, let me just say that my basic argument was that people believe weird things because of emotion, something no number of magazine and newspaper stories on the solidity of the science behind evolution (or the lack of evidence for homeopathy, psychic phenomena et al, as I also discussed in a column last year), is going to change. Add to that the public’s antipathy toward the press, and there’s no way the press can help the skeptics’ cause.
Hmmm. I thought it was good for members of the press to have a healthy skepticism. I guess this isn't the case when they're acting as an advocate for their own political beliefs, right Sharon?
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
(for deletion) Something
July 3, 2008 - 21:55 ET by Fairlight(for deletion)
----
July 3, 2008 - 20:26 ET by dahliatravers"I don't know" can be a very intelligent statement, as Jillette proved here. It's a concept and a phrase we should hear far more often from the AGW community. They would have far more credibility if they sometimes employed it instead of the non-stop, hysterical, self-confessed exaggerated rhetoric that they emit now.
Add to that the public’s
July 3, 2008 - 20:36 ET by bigtimerAdd to that the public’s antipathy toward the press and there’s no way the press can help the skeptics’ cause.
What point of light is this Begley missing?
She is actually talking about herself...wait and see.
"America isn't the problem...America is the solution." ~ Rush Limbaugh
'I took my children to see
July 3, 2008 - 20:41 ET by BigB'I took my children to see the film "Wall-E." This wonderful family entertainment opens with the given that mankind destroyed Earth.'
Ok, right there I'm at a loss...It reproduced, thus insuring we have at least 2 more deep thinkers in the world..
'The Earth Hates Us This I know
For a Cartoon Tells Us So.'
My brother used to have a fondness for Irish Setters...but as has been said..'They're beautiful dogs, but they bred the brains right out of them.'
Now, this might sting just a little bit.....
I guess I would pose the
July 3, 2008 - 21:09 ET by mulerider24I guess I would pose the same challenge to Sharon that she required of Penn - convince me that man made global warming exists in an impromptu one minute response during an off-script Q&A. If her rhetoric is inadequate, that obviously means this GW gibberish is baseless and I will be forced to make up my mind based on a pretend scientist at Newsweek.
Congrats Noel...You've been deemed Sinister
July 3, 2008 - 21:48 ET by dboAs much as Begley is a complete waste of space, there's one journalist that is even worse-Mark Lynas.
http://www.newstates...
This whack job once threw a pie in the face of scientist Bjorn Lomborg because he disagreed with his position on how to mitigate global warming.
Mark Lynas first drew significant attention to himself for his views on climate change in 2001, when he threw a custard-pie into the face of Bjorn Lomborg, during a book launch.
Pie-man
Mark Lynas said he was unable to ignore Lomborg's comments on climate
change. "I wanted to put a Baked Alaska in his smug face," said Lynas,
"in solidarity with the native Indian and Eskimo people in Alaska who
are reporting rising temperatures, shrinking sea ice and worsening
effects on animal and bird life."
"And yet despite all this evidence," comments Lynas,
"Lomborg somehow contrives to argue that it is cheaper to go on burning
fossil fuels than to switch to clean energy to prevent runaway global
warming. This feeds right into the agenda of profiteering
multinationals like Esso." He continued: "I don't see why the
environment should suffer every time some bored, obscure academic
fancies an ego trip. This book is full of dangerous nonsense.
http://www.climate-r...
If turnabout is fair play...
July 12, 2008 - 09:04 ET by JohnMI wonder if he'll smack himself in his own smug face after he reads this:
Huge Volcanoes May Be Erupting Under Arctic Ice
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374542,00.html
If he won't, maybe there will be other volunteers?
Evolution
July 3, 2008 - 23:03 ET by Kenny Bunkport"people believe weird things because of emotion, something no number of magazine and newspaper stories on the solidity of the science behind evolution...is going to change"
I appreciate anyone going on record as being skeptical of global warming due to the lack of compelling evidence. I am always puzzled however how even these skeptics buy evolution pretty much at face value.
It was exactly this lack of compelling evidence and the abundant use of conjecture that made me question evolutionary theory many years ago. It probably gave me the "show me the money" attitude I have know.
Like AGWers, evos seem to operate under the premise if you can't prove me wrong, then I'm probably right. Also, I have never bought the argument that this is the "best explanation we have". Well, if it is, then it's a god-awful one. Oh yes, God is totally against the rules.
I just think it's odd that Penn and Teller "just don't know" about AGW, but are pretty darn sure about evolution. Hey boys! I've got news for you they're both BAD science!
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
More BAD science
July 4, 2008 - 09:35 ET byI would like to throw into the mix of questionable theories the theory of gravitation. Most of us know that gravity is a theory not unlike the theory of evolution and the theory of global warming/climate change. While all of these theories are supported by facts, the theory of gravitation is undoubtedly the least understood of the three. There is no equivalent “fossil record” or “accumulated data” to help us understand the force of gravity. In fact, nobody really understands the cause of gravitational force. Sure, there are mathematical formulas having to do with mass, rotational speed, density, etc. but still, nobody really knows how it works. It remains therefore one of the least understood theories of our time.
And so it begs the question: If modern man is questioning evolutionary theory and climate change theory despite all of the documented, supporting evidence for those theories, why not in God’s name are we not questioning the theory of gravity? I guess it has to do with what the meaning of “theory” is.
You can bet your sweet Bippy though that if Al Gore started addressing the theory of gravitation, many of us would see the light and question gravity for the unproven, unsupported theory that it is!
Did you take any science?
July 4, 2008 - 12:03 ET by Kenny BunkportAnderson,
I see you are going with a favorite evolution attack. If you deny our theory, then you are anti-science. All or nothing. Quite the contrary, I am very pro-science. It just needs to be science. Your non-sequiter about gravity is a de facto ad hominem attack, implying that I am skeptical of all science, therefore, not worthy of consideration.
I know everyone likes their fuzzy science, but in my day the definition of a valid theory was:
1. Is it observable? (Can you accurately identify and document mechanisms of change?)
2. Is is predictable? (Based on what was observed, what will happen next?)
3. Is it reproducible? (Do we get the same results if we use the same parameters, and run the experiment again.)
As you can see. The theory of gravity easily passes all three of these criteria. Whereas, the theory of evolution fulfills none of them. Using this guideline, global warming theory is LESS junk science than evolution.
Gravity, electromagnetism, ballistics, etc. are considered HARD SCIENCES. They have been tested repeatedly and few people would doubt their validity. Evolution falls into the same camp as anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc., generally referred to as SOFT SCIENCES because they are based more on suppositions and models. Proving them is next to impossible.
Anderson, I suggest you learn the diffence between verifiable and speculative science. All soft sciences SHOULD BE treated will a great degree of skepticism. As for your example, if you would have chosen cosmic string theory instead of gravity, then I would have given you a bonus point.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
Your three test are not the
July 4, 2008 - 12:32 ET by NL207Your three test are not the scientific method. They only determine if the scientific method may be applied to a question. The method itself is:
1. Observe a phenomena.
2. Formulate a hypothesis.
3. Test the Hypothesis. Testing, to be valid, must have the potential to falsify the hypothesis. Verify is not enough by itself.
4. Return to step 1 until the Hypothesis is validated.
It is here where much of what is called science breaks down, including the AGWers, the Evolutionists and the ID'ers. The Creationists don't count because their theory by definition rests on blind faith and is therefore not science at all, but theology.
NL, I accept your
July 4, 2008 - 13:26 ET by Kenny BunkportNL, I accept your clarification.
Whether you agree or with me or not, I think our statements point to a conclusion. That while being a tremendously powerful tool, the scientific method does not lend itself to all questions. It is not a end-all for every problem in the universe.
We tend to teach and describe all science as being equal. This was my bone with Anderson. Do I think that we shouldn't be exploring these areas using scientific methods? Absolutely not! Sadly, there are no other tools available to study these mysteries except theology. mysticism, etc. Perhaps there is a future Weltanschauung that will explain these in a sense like science. But for now, our science methods are lacking.
Our science curriculum needs to express that their is a huge difference in understanding between hard and soft sciences. We need to emphasize the speculative aspect compared to the verifiable aspect. I get tired of being called a flat-earther because I want more than a pretty theory.
As Anderson indicates, this distinction is not made. My conspiracy side feels that it is an intententional deceit by those in the softer sciences to give more authority to their research. As for origins, I wouldn't throw theology out the window, BUT I wouldn't try to dress it up as science either.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
KB, by definition science requires skepticism
July 4, 2008 - 13:06 ET by“The theory of gravity passes all three of these criteria. Whereas, the theory of evolution fulfills none of them.”
Huh? Come again? Let’s check that assertion.
1. Is evolution observable? Yes, of course it is. The fossil record is clear that organisms have evolved over time. That is of course true if you believe in the fossil record. Some believe that God created a false fossil record to fool people who are non-believers (false geological, anthropological, and sociological records, as well). But I ask you, why would God want to do something deceptive to fool his own children into non-believing?
2. Is evolution predictable? Yes, of course it is. Pharmaceutical manufacturers cannot stockpile flu shots from year to year because they know that the flu virus evolves and a new and different variation will pop up every year. This is another proof that evolution is observable. This is the root of the problem with the avian flu virus issue. If avian flu mutates (evolves) and begins to infect humans, scientists don’t believe that enough anti-viral medication can be made in time to save large sectors of the world’s population. It takes time to understand what the virus has evolved into and more time to create a drug to kill it off. Evolution is predictable and inevitable, but we can’t as of yet predict the next transformation. That is because evolution is inherently random in nature.
3. Is evolution reproducible? Yes, of course. Point one: The fossil record confirms the same theory no matter what part of the world they are found in. Point two: New viruses evolve every year.
Now, let’s try your same empirical tests with Intelligent Design, shall we?
1. Is ID observable? No. It is a once and done thing, presumable done by God 6,000 years ago. We cannot observe it. We can only speculate that it must be so because no other explanation suits our beliefs.
2. Is ID predicable? Impossible. As it is a once and done occurrence, future occurrences are impossible to predict, unless we profess to know the will and future actions of God.
3. Is ID reproducible? I suppose so, but then again, how would we know what God’s plans are? Its being reproducible is therefore unverifiable.
The conclusion of course is that ID has no place in a science classroom. Keep it in church where it belongs.
One final point. You accused me of ad hominem attacks, meaning “against the man.” In the vernacular it is also known as “shooting the messenger,” such as Penn and Teller stating to the effect that they distrust global warming theories because they hate everything about Al Gore. That is an ad hominem attack, as is your asking me pejoratively if I have ever attended a science class. Just to be clear, you are the one making the ad hominem attacks in this discussion.
ID? Did I say anything
July 4, 2008 - 13:56 ET by Kenny BunkportID?
Did I say anything about ID? I've criticized evolution since I was old enough to separate good science from bad. I'm not promoting ID. If you remember I said that I was disappointed that scientific people accepted evolution without question not that they didn't accept ID. ID is not in my argument, My argument is how can a "scientific" person accept evolution as fact?
Observable? Yes we might be able to infer the organism have transmutated over time by looking at the fossil record. However without knowing mechanisms it's only a guess.
If I went into a warehouse everynight and took a picture. I may conclude that boxes evolve into other boxes, boxes move on their own, boxes evolve from something else, etc. Why not? After all, I never see the human mechanusm behind the change. Without that knowledge everything is speculation.
And don't try to tell me you know that mechanism. There isn't enough billion years for random mutations to organize in more complex forms we see today.
Predictable? Tell me how humans will evolve without it being a wild-assed guess?
Reproducible? Viruses don't evolve, they mutate. We have never, ever observed the creation of a new species. We've seen lots of mutations but no new species generation. Not the same thing.
The origins of life began something like 4 billion years ago. So to go from simple one celled life to modern man we would need how many genetic mutations? 10 billion? 4 billion? 1 billion? 100 million?
Even at 100 million that would average to one mutation, that stuck, in the positive direction (no dead ends) every 40 years. I understand that homo sapiens have remained genetically unchanged for 40,000 years. If evolution is to occur in any kind of time frame, then we should have seen something in the recent fossil record. In fact we should be able to see stuff happening before our eyes.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
Anderson, Your entire
July 4, 2008 - 14:27 ET by Kenny BunkportAnderson,
Your entire comparison [theory of gravity vs. theory of evolution] establishes me as a "flat-earther". Once established as a flat earther, my scientific standing is impugned. Likewise, with the ID argument. Both are set up to establish me as "anti-science". That is why I stated they are de facto ad hominen arguments.
de facto - actual, def. being in effect without being formally recognized.
I'm sorry, whether you intended this or not, it IS a personal attack. I responded in kind. That was probably immature of me.
A gun in your hand beats a cop on the phone.
Penn And Teller BS response to this theory
July 4, 2008 - 20:21 ET by Tjexcitehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdzJVXUJV7E Pt1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2TDCNsogj4 Pt3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fZdt3x5Bmk Pt 3
8 Min each
I believe in evolution. I
July 4, 2008 - 16:07 ET by ApacheI believe in evolution. I also believe global warming alarmists use science as the nazi's used Darwinism. Darwinism was misused by the Nazis as justification for their views on race and war. Science is misused and misrepresented by Alarmists to promote their agenda/religion. The scientists labeled 'skeptics' or 'deniers' tend to have much better qualifications than the alarmists yet alarmists can only answer with mock and ridicule because they have nothing else. The alarmists just have the media and thus appear louder. You can bet if the proposed solution to global crisis like what AGW pretends to be was capitalism and was promoted by Dan Quayle rather than Gore the whole movement would have died it's first week even if it really did result in the destruction of the planet.
Awaiting patiently...
July 4, 2008 - 13:29 ET by dmntd1I am patiently waiting for the chance to ask the moonbats, "If you are so sure that evolution occurred, could this alleged global climate change not be a mere cog in the wheel of evolution? You say we've gone from fish to monkees to humans, from living in goop, to the water to on land. Why must you so arrogantly attempt to stand in the way of our next evolving? Maybe our next form will prefer the water again. Or maybe we'll live in the air, floating on the thermal updrafts from the occasional sighting of a whale. Maybe the next evolution won't include bi-ped homo-sapiens at all, instead we'll have batwings and eat fish."
Fascism is a religious conception in which man is seen in his imminent relationship with a superior law and with an objective will that transcends the particular individual - Mussolini
What dumb people hate most about Penn & Teller
July 4, 2008 - 05:32 ET by sarcasmoIs that they're unapologetic about being very smart, in addition to the more-forgivable offense of being very funny.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
sarc .. one of the funniest
July 4, 2008 - 05:56 ET by Jack Bauersarc .. one of the funniest things I ever saw P&T do was a take-down of "recycling."
Pretending to be state officials, they got a street full of "liberals" to accept about 20 different colored garbage bins outside each of their houses.
Then they got them to subdivide all the houshold trash into bizarre sub-groups, then they even managed to get "offenders" to root around in their own disgusting garbage because they supposedly had put things like "baby diapers" in the wrong bin.
It was both hilarous and frightning at how far people would go when told by a quasi-government official that their crazy activity was "good" and "mandatory."
And people wonder how totalitarian movements get a grip of whole populations.
IIRC they also did one on womens' sufferage
July 4, 2008 - 06:59 ET by sarcasmoManaging, hilariously, to get feminists to sign a petition against it. And obviously, this cartoon belongs in this thread.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
→ Libertarian Ambassadors
July 4, 2008 - 07:05 ET by Cool ArrowI don't haveHBO, but I enjoy Penn when he is on Glenn Beck.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
My favorite Penn/Gillette
July 4, 2008 - 07:19 ET by Roger the ShrubberMy favorite Penn/Gillette moment was his takedown on 9/11 truthers. Pardon the language if you click the link.
Wouldn't you just like to
July 4, 2008 - 08:54 ET by Jack BauerWouldn't you just like to deck any of those crazy, awful people. I mean, really really hurt them and screw the consequences.
Especially as none of them look like they could fight their way out of a paper bag. Unlike the great 9/11 firemen featured.
So gut-wrenching to see the buildings fall.
And, not to be inconvenient
July 4, 2008 - 12:19 ET by sarcasmoAlthough that's occasionally my role, but guess who Penn supported for President?
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I believe you are confusing
July 6, 2008 - 09:04 ET by Roger the ShrubberI believe you are confusing inconvenient with inconsequential.
Nope.
July 6, 2008 - 09:46 ET by sarcasmoJust inconvenient.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
You actually answered this?
July 7, 2008 - 09:08 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou actually answered this? Too funny.
same to you
July 7, 2008 - 10:55 ET by sarcasmoAnd same-sentiment about your attempt at a comeback. It's important to counter lies, and Penn does it damn-well. The truth about who he supported is the truth, like it or not, so, as I keep telling people here: "deal with it."
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
Wow.
July 7, 2008 - 12:00 ET by Roger the ShrubberTry reading messages before responding. I never commented on Penn's "truth". I merely pointed out your mistake in thinking yourself inconvenient to this website. I correctly pointed out your mistake, that you actually are inconsequential.
But thanks for allowing me to acknowledge your dumbassity a second time.
You may go now.
Nope.
July 8, 2008 - 06:32 ET by sarcasmoI never said you did, I was commenting on Penn when I talked about Penn. You overestimate, again, your own importance, but thanks for repeatedly bringing attention to the issue. You may go now, I'll stay here in inconvenient humor land.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
You mean "insequential
July 8, 2008 - 11:23 ET by Roger the ShrubberYou mean "insequential land", right? Oh wait, that's the Land of Libertarians, isn't it? At least you are admitting to being in a different world than the rest of us. That first step is always a big step, Sarky!
Nope.
July 8, 2008 - 11:26 ET by sarcasmoI mean what I said. And it's still amusing that you want to draw attention to yourself in this way, but I'm happy to oblige...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
everybody got a gri gri
July 4, 2008 - 10:27 ET by lunaticcringeradioeven they had to admit they hated to admit recycling was a load.
the only effective recycling was in metals and that's obvious in the steel aluminum and copper industries alone considering how the cost of metals have risen to even force the reopening of old mines.
i loved the bit where they rolled out like 8 different recycle cans, one for wet paper the other for dry, one for baby diapers and dead animals. now we don't have kids ourselves to fill baby diapers but even if all our 3 cats, 3 salt water tanks, snakes, and spiders all died at once we still wouldn't fill 1/4 of a recycle bin with dead animals. but those big government following zombies went right along with it like it was a necessity exposing how the public are so gullible to liberal big government and allowing big government to steam roll over them with non necessary extra fuctions to justify big governments existence. which was the whole point of that exercise. i really liked how they exposed how the recycling plant was there just pretty much as a government busy work program.
i'm sure @boy isn't going to like any of my comments here either. come on @boy tell me how recycling is so great because a liberal thought it up or something.
3 of clubs
lunaticcringeradio
luna
July 4, 2008 - 10:32 ET by BlondeThere's a video of that recycling gig around...with all of these different color recycling toters, purple, green, yellow, red, pink, blue, white....and the eco-freaks trying to get the right thing in the right can. It's hillarious. I wish I could find it...for the obvious reason.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Found it
July 6, 2008 - 09:37 ET by BlondeThis is for you, PopTech.
David Gregory, do you know which damn network you lie for? ~ Uncle Jimbo, @Blackfive
Penn and Teller Bullshit! Classics
July 4, 2008 - 07:17 ET by PopularTechBullshit! - Environmental Hysteria (Video) (29min)
Bullshit! - Endangered Species (Video) (29min)
Bullshit! - Nukes, Hybrids & Lesbians (Video) (28min)
Bullshit! - Recycling (Video) (29min)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Hybrids
July 4, 2008 - 07:19 ET by Cool ArrowDidn't the hybrid just give birth the other day?
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
COME ON,
July 4, 2008 - 09:20 ET by red_dragon311COME ON, MAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I just got that image out of my mind......
A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.
-Gerald Ford
→ Hey dragon
July 4, 2008 - 09:26 ET by Cool ArrowIt's 4th of July.
Celebrate!
LYDSEXICS UNTIE
i haven't seen a bad show yet
July 4, 2008 - 10:10 ET by lunaticcringeradiolast nights show was pretty critical of big government nasa and we just couldn't stop laughing at the replay of the new age medicine bits. the lady with the suction cups on her breasts pulling out all the "toxins" was hilarious.
3 of clubs
lunaticcringeradio
being an avid fan of penn & tellers act and tv show
July 4, 2008 - 10:10 ET by lunaticcringeradiothis lady started something i think she is going to regret. penn & teller are not your average celebrity, they will not be bullied and brainwashed into following the hollywood liberal mantra for the biggest reason of all. they have self esteem. too many of hollywoods faces are mindless lumps who have such low self esteem are seeking acceptance from anyone and will do anything to gain that acceptance, this leaves a perfect void for the liberal mindset to walk in and coddle the weak minded. she thought she'd pull a global warming mind trick penn & teller, come on, they know how to look for the mark anywhere and it's obvious when they ask the most important questions. Is it happening? Did we cause it? Is it bad? Can we fix it? Is government-forced conservation the only way to fix it? they built their careers on millions of attempts and millions of failures until they got things right and by doing so it made penn & teller mentally stronger and gave them a healthy sense of self esteem unlike the sycophantic liberals in hollywood that glum onto the next emotional cause that rolls down the pipe all in an attempt to gain acceptance otherwise their weak selfesteem that has never been put to the test will crumble. liberals just can't accept failure(see 2000 and 2004 elections non of it was their fault) and must find a way prevent it all the time, they don't understand that failure isn't a bad thing, it is benifitial to the learning process and to blindly jump all in into one boat on the hint of failure is a recipe for ultimate disaster.
but i'm sure @boy wont like this insight in to the liberal mindset at all and will ask his buddies at democraticunderground or thedailykos for some pointers on how to try and insult me. go ahead @boy enlighten me and talk down to me if you can.
3 of clubs
lunaticcringeradio
"The Great Global Warming Swindle"
July 5, 2008 - 06:44 ET by BritcomAccepted theories about man causing global warming are "lies" claims a controversial new TV documentary. From Channel 4 (UK)
(Send the link to all your friends!)
---
Sen. John McCain (2003):
"...I am proud to say that I was born in your country.&
oops
July 12, 2008 - 09:05 ET by JohnM