Posted on 12/09/2017 7:20:18 AM PST by antidemoncrat
Melissa McCarthy and Jennifer Aniston have dealt climate skeptics a blow from which they may never recover… a sketch on Jimmy Kimmel Live on Thursday suggesting that not believing in climate change is the same as not believing in gravity.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
/s
Just ask the next climate scientist (like Jennifer Anniston) to state their null hypothesis.
There isn't one, unless it is that the earth's climate was invariant prior to the Industrial Revolution.
More from the “do as I say-not as I do” crowd.
Isn't she a porn actress, and got caught stealing?
What else would we expect from strippers?
Not so much Mensa.
More like menza menz (NY Italian for mediocre).
A lot of this crap would STOP if the audience would ignore the cue card and break out in laughter whenever one of these geniuses start spouting off.
There must (I would surely hope) be a couple of people in the crowd with some sense and if THEY laugh first, the sheep will laugh with them.
I also doesn’t ‘help’ when the ‘brain trust’ emcee/host nods in agreement and thanks them for their unbiased opinion.
I can picture Johnny Carson interviewing these airheads and every once in a while asking someone to explain themselves or THEIR theory of the subject.
Dumb looks and gasps followed.
Of course we could resurrect that old show “Whats My Line?” and the greater majority of these Hollywood types could use the stock answer:
“IN REAL LIFE I AM AN IDIOT.”
and few would doubt them.
“The brain trust of the US has spoken.”
Yeah, thus spake Jennifer Aniston. I think we’re done here. No more need be said.
We should all start calling the anthropomorphic global warming fanatics "sun deniers."
Ah so that is who to blame for Harvey Weinstein!
Go tell it to the polar bears which according to Gore no longer exist. Such BS
Scientifically speaking, the concept of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a hypothesis, not a theory.
A theory is a conceptual framework informed by experimental and observational data. Theories tend to be revised and refined over time as more data becomes available. While there are theories on climate change, the actual theories are built on the observations of solar activity, orbital variances, and other cycles which affect the earth.
Ideally, in order for an idea to qualify as a hypothesis, it would have some element of testability. I'm not certain of the testable aspects of the AGW idea. A hypothesis must also be accompanied by a null hypothesis. Thus, a hypothesis and its null are stated, "If A is an actual phenomenon and we perform experiment B, we should expect to see result X. However, if A is not the case, we should expect to see result Y from experiment B." On the contrary, all I've ever seen (in countless scientific papers) is, "We observed A, and that proves AGW!" And such a statement is pronounced with the same kind of breathless excitement that CNN anchors use to pronounce that yet another nothingburger is absolute proof of Trump/Russia collusion.
Beat me to it. These are both towering intellects. Not.
Good at least one of them is sort of attractive but that is fading fast as it does with all of us.
Too bad age, wear and tear and gravity eventually take over.
If you believe in gravity?
I believe that apple could fall on my head if I sit under an apple tree. Is that good enough?
Climate believing is like not believing in God.
They’re so brave and outspoken, aren’t they (say liberals).
I wonder why weren’t they spouting off about politics when they were up-and-comers?
The answer is easy - it was before they made their millions and were set for life(times).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.