The Daily Show exposes "Liberal Media"

[NorthernVike 2,086]

Some of those people who have dedicated their lives to science and pretend to save lives are panty wearing idiots stuffing their egos with money given by muffins suckin chocolate humpers that tell them so. Anal is only good when both ends are good fer it.

/thread

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Is The Daily Show " peer reviewed"? If so, by who? Carrottop?

 

I'll look for a more credible source for my science.

[Mike Honcho 5,275]

Is The Daily Show " peer reviewed"? If so, by who? Carrottop?

 

I'll look for a more credible source for my science.

 

 

We've seen what you post as "science" and it's obvious you don't look for more credible sources.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

We've seen what you post as "science" and it's obvious you don't look for more credible sources.

Over the years I have brought links to thousands of credible scientists who do not believe in the theory of MMGW. I have linked to the exposure of the IPCC cooking the books and then destroying data once a FOIA was delivered to them. I have asked this question dozens of times, with no answer to date: If man is causing the Earth to heat up, how do you explain several ice ages coming and going over the history of the Earth?

 

You clowns are linking to The Daily Show to fight your battles. Geebus! How desperate have you guys become?

[Mike Honcho 5,275]

Over the years I have brought links to thousands of credible scientists who do not believe in the theory of MMGW. I have linked to the exposure of the IPCC cooking the books and then destroying data once a FOIA was delivered to them. I have asked this question dozens of times, with no answer to date: If man is causing the Earth to heat up, how do you explain several ice ages coming and going over the history of the Earth?

 

You clowns are linking to The Daily Show to fight your battles. Geebus! How desperate have you guys become?

 

 

Links, like the one you brought stating Mount Pinatubo spewed more pollution in one eruption than man his in all recorded history. Yeah, you know real credible science!

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Links, like the one you brought stating Mount Pinatubo spewed more pollution in one eruption than man his in all recorded history. Yeah, you know real credible science!

Wrong again. Never brought a link saying that.

 

How is John Stewart gonna solve the unemployment problem?

[Mike Honcho 5,275]

Wrong again. Never brought a link saying that.

 

How is John Stewart gonna solve the unemployment problem?

 

 

I think I know you didn't bring a link, considering I asked for one numerous times and you couldn't provide one. Just one example of you not being able to discern credible science from bunk.

 

It sure seems like you understand what sarcasm is, but perhaps I gave you too much credit.

[IAMWood 6]

Is The Daily Show " peer reviewed"? If so, by who? Carrottop?

 

I'll look for a more credible source for my science.

 

It's reviewed by your boy O'Reilly for one. And all the people they expose. I have spelled out the point of this thread more than once. You really that dense? Wait, I know the answer... don't bother.

[nikki2200 4]

The other day, Michio Kaku was talking about how scientists have discovered neutrinos moving faster than the speed of light, which would essentially prove all the laws of physics as we know them to be wrong. Science is wrong about 99% of the time. They constantly have to admit they were wrong because they discover the next thing. Was it really that long ago when scientists were sure the sun revolved around a flat earth that rode through space on the back of a giant turtle? What has science accomplished in the last 100 years? At this point, absolutely nothing. Which is why we have to have separation of science and state. Science has no place in government issues and should not be funded with tax dollars. It's a disgrace how science panders to the weak minded in order to stuff their pockets with funding for their bogus theories. Most scientists get rich from lying to the world.

 

Ban Science!!!

 

So how are your insulin shots?

[jerryskids 6,797]

It pisses me off when people call really smart people who have dedicated their lives to science and save lives and improve our standard of living stuff idiots because their political parties tell them so.

 

I believe that the vast majority of scientists truly believe in their research.

 

I believe that most scientists have ginormous egos and are motivated by the adulation of their peers.

 

I believe that the research funding process encourages scientists to pursue areas which maximize funding.

 

I believe these things because I am an engineer who has worked with such people for a long time.

 

To tie it all together: Scientists who support MMGW (MMCC?) truly believe it, they find their funding easily, and they are part of the accepted scientific community. Scientists who oppose it also truly believe it, but find funding to be very difficult, and (until recently at least) were considered leperous crackpots by the scientific community. It is similar to the fat vs. carbs debate -- in the 70s there was contentious debate and carbs won out, which spurred 30 years of teaching that fat is bad and carbs are fine.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

When is Stewert releasing his plan to eliminate the deficit? I'm on pins and needles.

[nikki2200 4]

I believe that the vast majority of scientists truly believe in their research.

 

I believe that most scientists have ginormous egos and are motivated by the adulation of their peers.

 

I believe that the research funding process encourages scientists to pursue areas which maximize funding.

 

I believe these things because I am an engineer who has worked with such people for a long time.

 

To tie it all together: Scientists who support MMGW (MMCC?) truly believe it, they find their funding easily, and they are part of the accepted scientific community. Scientists who oppose it also truly believe it, but find funding to be very difficult, and (until recently at least) were considered leperous crackpots by the scientific community. It is similar to the fat vs. carbs debate -- in the 70s there was contentious debate and carbs won out, which spurred 30 years of teaching that fat is bad and carbs are fine.

 

I agree with everything you said. What I don't agree with is someone, someone who posted here and who I was talking to, that if a scientist does any research that supports the concept of global warming, they automatically have some sort of agenda, they are clearly biased, and are faking the results because that's what Fox News told me I'm supposed to believe. And since one bunch of scientists fudged their work they all will. And there's no way that there can be such a thing as global warming, cuz it's really cold out there. I can't tolerate ignorance.

[nikki2200 4]

When is Stewert releasing his plan to eliminate the deficit? I'm on pins and needles.

 

You are a charicature of an assclown.

[DanXIII 8]

The Daily Show is a comedy show. It's not a news show that has due dilligence when reporting news.

 

So it's like Fox News only it's funny!

[jerryskids 6,797]

I agree with everything you said. What I don't agree with is someone, someone who posted here and who I was talking to, that if a scientist does any research that supports the concept of global warming, they automatically have some sort of agenda, they are clearly biased, and are faking the results because that's what Fox News told me I'm supposed to believe. And since one bunch of scientists fudged their work they all will. And there's no way that there can be such a thing as global warming, cuz it's really cold out there. I can't tolerate ignorance.

 

Well, they typically do have an agenda and some bias (see my statement about egos). My original statement, which I modified before I posted, was:

 

"I believe that most scientists have ginormous egos and are not very open to contrary opinions."

 

I feel like I'm on the edge of condemning the peer review process, and I don't want to do that, in part because I'm not familiar enough with it. I will say however that bias affects human decisions, intentional or not.

 

I certainly believe that faking results is rare. Errors are probably much more common. It is unfortunate (for lack of a better word) for the MMCC crowd that the people who did the landmark IPCC study were in that minority. You know what they say, build a thousand bridges but suck one cack...

 

The last statement about it being cold today is just made to fish; surely you know that.

[nikki2200 4]

Well, they typically do have an agenda and some bias (see my statement about egos). My original statement, which I modified before I posted, was:

 

"I believe that most scientists have ginormous egos and are not very open to contrary opinions."

 

I feel like I'm on the edge of condemning the peer review process, and I don't want to do that, in part because I'm not familiar enough with it. I will say however that bias affects human decisions, intentional or not.

 

I certainly believe that faking results is rare. Errors are probably much more common. It is unfortunate (for lack of a better word) for the MMCC crowd that the people who did the landmark IPCC study were in that minority. You know what they say, build a thousand bridges but suck one cack...

 

The last statement about it being cold today is just made to fish; surely you know that.

 

I agree with everything you are saying. Really. Of course there is unintentional bias. If you believe your hypothesis, even if you want to be impartial, you are not. But I think scientific method does try to do a good job to take human bias out of results.

 

To your point about faking results, that is what set me off. I also believe faking results is extremely rare, mostly because you probably will be found out and your credibiity completely ruined, if for nothing else. But now it seems because of the idiots in the IPCC study, all research can be written off because the science is only there to feed a political agenda. And I just don't believe that about most scientists. I believe they are looking for the truth and are very passionate about it. And they save lives and make the world we live in today possible.

 

And somehow the scientific community has grown to be demonized by the right wingers, whether it's evolution or global warming, and it makes me so angry I could punch someone.

 

That's all.

[phillybear 366]

To your point about faking results, that is what set me off. I also believe faking results is extremely rare, mostly because you probably will be found out and your credibiity completely ruined, if for nothing else. But now it seems because of the idiots in the IPCC study, all research can be written off because the science is only there to feed a political agenda. And I just don't believe that about most scientists. I believe they are looking for the truth and are very passionate about it. And they save lives and make the world we live in today possible. That's all.

 

All of the second hand smoke leads to cancer studies were proven to be utter bullsh!t. The faulty and falsified data is still quoted as gospel to this day.

[Bishop82 61]

This should keep you guys busy for a while

[jerryskids 6,797]

 

And somehow the scientific community has grown to be demonized by the right wingers, whether it's evolution or global warming, and it makes me so angry I could punch someone.

 

 

I hope this is a broad stereotype, because I am a conservative and I don't share this view. Also I don't want to get punched.

[nikki2200 4]

All of the second hand smoke leads to cancer studies were proven to be utter bullsh!t. The faulty and falsified data is still quoted as gospel to this day.

 

I asked you how your insulin shots were and you didn't answer.

 

And dude... about the smoking thing. I get that you really like to do it and all. I love smoking. But it is bad for you. It's not some big conspiracy. It will kill you and if you actually make it through life without experiencing some sort of serious health complications from smoking, you are one of the lucky ones, OK. I get that you are in denial because you want to believe it's perfectly fine. It's not. You can ask my dead uncle about that who died at 50 from lung cancer after smoking Marlboro Reds for 30 years. Or my grandmother who died of ephysema. Or my mom who is about to drop dead of a stroke at any moment from high blood pressure.

 

Just quit. You can do it.

 

I hope this is a broad stereotype, because I am a conservative and I don't share this view. Also I don't want to get punched.

 

I didn't mean everyone. It was a general statement about people that say things that imply that scientists are just a bunch of hacks trying to further a political agenda. Also you are having a bad week so I won't punch you yet.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I asked you how your insulin shots were and you didn't answer.

 

And dude... about the smoking thing. I get that you really like to do it and all. I love smoking. But it is bad for you. It's not some big conspiracy. It will kill you and if you actually make it through life without experiencing some sort of serious health complications from smoking, you are one of the lucky ones, OK. I get that you are in denial because you want to believe it's perfectly fine. It's not. You can ask my dead uncle about that who died at 50 from lung cancer after smoking Marlboro Reds for 30 years. Or my grandmother who died of ephysema. Or my mom who is about to drop dead of a stroke at any moment from high blood pressure.

 

Just quit. You can do it.

 

he clearly said " second hand smoke", Chuckles.

[phillybear 366]

I asked you how your insulin shots were and you didn't answer.

 

And dude... about the smoking thing. I get that you really like to do it and all. I love smoking. But it is bad for you. It's not some big conspiracy. It will kill you and if you actually make it through life without experiencing some sort of serious health complications from smoking, you are one of the lucky ones, OK. I get that you are in denial because you want to believe it's perfectly fine. It's not. You can ask my dead uncle about that who died at 50 from lung cancer after smoking Marlboro Reds for 30 years. Or my grandmother who died of ephysema. Or my mom who is about to drop dead of a stroke at any moment from high blood pressure.

 

Just quit. You can do it.

 

I do not consider myself a smoker. Having on average one cigarette a month while consuming alcohol isn't going to kill someone. Can some smokers die from cancer? Sure. Can cigarette smoke cause cancer in a non smoker? It's never been proven. In fact, we really don't know what causes cancer in most situations, so it's speculation, for the most part. But I will absolutely complain about the unfair prejudice directed to smokers, who don't deserve to be beaten down over fake data and wild speculation and pure conjecture.

 

How are my insulin shots? Mostly painless I guess. I've drank rum every day this week, yet my sugar readings fall into the normal range. My routine is to put 2 liters of water on my nightstand, and I chug that before turning in for the night to get my hour of sleep. That keeps my readings on track. I'm not really sure what the question really is.

[NewbieJr 541]

I asked you how your insulin shots were and you didn't answer.

 

 

What's he going to say? He's such a fraud. He's anti-science but takes more meds than anyone on this board. If it wasn't for science, his diabetic, gout-ridden, overweight, disgusting ass would have been six feet under ten years ago.

[NewbieJr 541]

That keeps my readings on track. I'm not really sure what the question really is.

The question is how you can be anti-science but only be alive because of science. It's not that hard to figure out, Einstein.

[phillybear 366]

The question is how you can be anti-science but only be alive because of science. It's not that hard to figure out, Einstein.

 

I'm not that interested in staying alive, but somebody has to bury my parents. I fock death in the sh!thole and give it noogies on a regular basis.

 

Medical research has discovered a cure for diabetes, but it's certainly not profitable to give to the world because so many diabetics pay for so much medicine. So, science is focking us once again.

 

Science is for fagguts.

[nikki2200 4]

I do not consider myself a smoker. Having on average one cigarette a month while consuming alcohol isn't going to kill someone. Can some smokers die from cancer? Sure. Can cigarette smoke cause cancer in a non smoker? It's never been proven. In fact, we really don't know what causes cancer in most situations, so it's speculation, for the most part. But I will absolutely complain about the unfair prejudice directed to smokers, who don't deserve to be beaten down over fake data and wild speculation and pure conjecture.

 

I guess I just assumed you were a smoker by your vigilance in poo-pooing any data that suggests it's bad for you. Sounds like you just found a cause to get behind. Smokers' Rights! I guess there are worse ones.

 

 

How are my insulin shots? Mostly painless I guess. I've drank rum every day this week, yet my sugar readings fall into the normal range. My routine is to put 2 liters of water on my nightstand, and I chug that before turning in for the night to get my hour of sleep. That keeps my readings on track. I'm not really sure what the question really is.

 

Just wanted to make sure you are keeping yourself alive.

[phillybear 366]

What's he going to say? He's such a fraud. He's anti-science but takes more meds than anyone on this board. If it wasn't for science, his diabetic, gout-ridden, overweight, disgusting ass would have been six feet under ten years ago.

 

I've recently declined modeling gigs because I didn't want to become jaded.

[penultimatestraw 473]

The other day, Michio Kaku was talking about how scientists have discovered neutrinos moving faster than the speed of light, which would essentially prove all the laws of physics as we know them to be wrong. Science is wrong about 99% of the time. They constantly have to admit they were wrong because they discover the next thing. Was it really that long ago when scientists were sure the sun revolved around a flat earth that rode through space on the back of a giant turtle? What has science accomplished in the last 100 years? At this point, absolutely nothing. Which is why we have to have separation of science and state. Science has no place in government issues and should not be funded with tax dollars. It's a disgrace how science panders to the weak minded in order to stuff their pockets with funding for their bogus theories. Most scientists get rich from lying to the world.

 

Ban Science!!!

Not sure how much of this is sarcasm, but I'm curious who you trust/in what do you base your trust? Feel free to respond with your magic letter-writing gizmo.

 

While you're at it, can you provide a link to the second-hand smoke debunking? Maybe start by refuting this info: My link And the diabetes cure the scientists are keeping from the public?

[GettnHuge 2]

Not sure how much of this is sarcasm, but I'm curious who you trust/in what do you base your trust? Feel free to respond with your magic letter-writing gizmo.

 

While you're at it, can you provide a link to the second-hand smoke debunking? Maybe start by refuting this info: My link And the diabetes cure the scientists are keeping from the public?

 

I think that study was done by the same rock solid science genyusses who decided that cell phones will start fires at gas stations

[IAMWood 6]

I think that study was done by the same rock solid science genyusses who decided that cell phones will start fires at gas stations

 

You're all over it douche.

 

 

[penultimatestraw 473]

I think that study was done by the same rock solid science genyusses who decided that cell phones will start fires at gas stations

There are good and bad scientists, just as in any other human activity. Egos and money influence some of the bad behavior, but rarely is there near consensus in any scientific field, as exists in climate change. Probably the same can be said for the dangers of secondhand smoke.

[GettnHuge 2]

You're all over it douche.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JsVJRNGptXc&feature=related

you believe everything you see online? lol

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4vW3fsJ8pk

 

that's more realistic

[phillybear 366]

Not sure how much of this is sarcasm, but I'm curious who you trust/in what do you base your trust? Feel free to respond with your magic letter-writing gizmo.

 

While you're at it, can you provide a link to the second-hand smoke debunking? Maybe start by refuting this info: My link And the diabetes cure the scientists are keeping from the public?

 

I trust in myself, cause I'm wicked smaht.

 

My letter writing gizmo is not magical, but practical. I simply hit a key on my typewriter, which cues the tiny gnore that lives under the key, it dips it's brush into a tiny can of paint, and the scamp produces a letter on my monitor, or as it's more commonly refer to, easel. Once my painting is finished, I hit Add Reply and PRESTO!! A series of flip another easel in place, and then I start again. But not too quickly. I have to give the gnomes at least 20 seconds, or they threaten to flood my typewriter machine.

 

The second hand smoke debate never even got started. It began with an EPA report observing spouses of heavy smokers. They can into the study with an agenda. Well, they could not prove a single link to cancer, despite a 40 year study. So...they just made some numbers up. After all, they already had the thesis written, a preconceived notion, and a conclusion before the study began. It's been debunked in court. Penn and Teller mocked the data on their Showtime show. And....the antismoker community took those fake numbers and ran with them. To this day.

 

We have invented car engines that run on water many times. Why isn't this on the market, and why do the inventors keep dying from accidental poisoning? If you cure disease, how do you make money from an drug industry and medical industry and government tax point of view

[Recliner Pilot 61]

What is John Stewert's plan to deal with illegal immigration? Inquiring minds want to know.

[IAMWood 6]

you believe everything you see online? lol

 

 

 

 

 

 

No, do you sparky?

 

I love irony, the only problem is that most people don't get it.

 

[penultimatestraw 473]

I trust in myself, cause I'm wicked smaht.

 

My letter writing gizmo is not magical, but practical. I simply hit a key on my typewriter, which cues the tiny gnore that lives under the key, it dips it's brush into a tiny can of paint, and the scamp produces a letter on my monitor, or as it's more commonly refer to, easel. Once my painting is finished, I hit Add Reply and PRESTO!! A series of flip another easel in place, and then I start again. But not too quickly. I have to give the gnomes at least 20 seconds, or they threaten to flood my typewriter machine.

 

The second hand smoke debate never even got started. It began with an EPA report observing spouses of heavy smokers. They can into the study with an agenda. Well, they could not prove a single link to cancer, despite a 40 year study. So...they just made some numbers up. After all, they already had the thesis written, a preconceived notion, and a conclusion before the study began. It's been debunked in court. Penn and Teller mocked the data on their Showtime show. And....the antismoker community took those fake numbers and ran with them. To this day.

 

We have invented car engines that run on water many times. Why isn't this on the market, and why do the inventors keep dying from accidental poisoning? If you cure disease, how do you make money from an drug industry and medical industry and government tax point of view

Why do they make vaccines then? I know, there's more money in autism than infectious diseases. You are right that the pharmaceutical industry invests more $ in developing (sometimes unnecessary) drugs for chronic diseases, rather than those for short-term illnesses that can be cured. That doesn't mean they are withholding the cures, however.

 

Maybe you should protest them evil scientists and stop taking your medicine?

 

Penn and Teller are great magicians and showmen, but do you really trust them for your medical advice?

 

ETA Watched the P & T video, and they are only disputing the link between secondhand smoke and cancer. Not asthma or vascular disease, which it has been more convincingly proven to exacerbate. I'll concede the association with cancer is weak, though it still exists.

[MedStudent 56]

I hope this is a broad stereotype, because I am a conservative and I don't share this view. Also I don't want to get punched.

Says the king of the liberal stereotype.

[jerryskids 6,797]

Says the king of the liberal stereotype.

 

I don't think all liberals are useless leeches on society. Some are pollyanna ideologues like yourself.

[drobeski 3,061]

So the end result of this thread is there is an obvious liberal bias in the media and no certain proof of mmgw.

 

Good thread.

[Blitzen 0]

It pisses me off when people call really smart people who have dedicated their lives to science and save lives and improve our standard of living stuff idiots because their political parties tell them so.

 

I used to work in science and you want to be at least a little careful. When I did my masters' lit review, I found that one of the top researchers in my field had omitted to report findings from one of his own earlier peer-reviewed papers to allow himself to publish a later peer-reviewed paper. I was told by my thesis supervisor to shut up about it since that researcher might review my masters thesis.

 

The peer-review process is not air-tight and researchers don't all work for the good of humanity.

 

Quite frankly, I used to be firmly in the GW is MM camp but I've read enough about it now that I don't know anymore. HOWEVER, this to me is no excuse for not trying to do anything about the warming trend. Because if we find out, 25 years down the road, that it is in fact mostly caused by humans, we'll have 25 years of delay to catch up on. And to me doing stuff like looking at alternative fuels and alternatives to petroleum-based products makes sense because at one point, unless they find a big ass oil field circling the earth's core, we will run out. So it's not like it's a wasted effort. We should be making every effort to replace fossil fuels for uses where we have alternatives (like in cars) to save as much as we can for other uses where we don't have clear mass alternatives available or even in the pipeline (like for airplanes).