Thank you Rick Perry!

The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. . .

The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence to the impact factor fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. . . nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system.

http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journa...%2960696-1.pdf

Here's what I don't get about you guys (idiots, I should say).

Say that I'm right, and you're wrong. Say that I'm right in assuming that humans are causing a major effect on this planets climate. After all, I do have a majority of the science to back me up.
What is the worst that could happen? Well, the future of the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE could be in jeopardy. If not your children, then your children's children will inhabit an earth with a much harsher climate than the one we live in. Unable to go outside, unable to enjoy the seasons we've come to enjoy.
P.S. Just so you know, the earth is already predicted to be uninhabitable in about 2 billion years due to global warming without human effect. What scientists argue is that that man-made climate change will bring that process around much sooner.




Now take the flip side of that argument. Say that you're right, and I'm wrong.
What's the worst that could happen?

Companies would be forced not to pollute our waters and our environment.

Oil companies that really control our economy would be replaced, or at least be given competition, by alternative energy sources which will only result in lower prices for both oil and alternative energy.

I don't know how many times I might have to repeat this: but OIL IS A NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE. That means that, maybe in a 100 years or maybe in a 1000, we will be running out of oil. We should be looking for alternative energy anyway, if we are to survive beyond that horizon. I would be rather proud to possibly be the generation that saves the planet.

You might be driving an electric car instead of one that relies on a NON-RENEWABLE energy source. I drive a Tesla model S and a Ford Focus Electric. They're both a car-owners dream. Easy to maintain, cost less (no gas cost), and quiet as a mouse. Also, My Tesla goes 0-60 in about 4 seconds. Enough bragging, I'm trying to tell you that electric vehicles are far superior to gas vehicles anyway, except perhaps for cross country road trips.
As an alternative you could reduce your car trips and use bikes and/or your feet to get to your destinations. Heaven knows some of you fat-asses need the exercise.

You might green proof your home, which will save you thousands for as long as your home uses power.


Worst comes to worst, your wife will be forcing you to eat veggie patties every Wednesday.
So what, again, is the argument against global warming? Other than "fuck Al Gore" and "Obummer"? Apply any degree of rationality (Pascals wager Lusty?), use any type of common sense, and you come out as a loser, especially because the alternative is so drastic. LMAO you motherfuckers make absolutely no sense; following behind your party's rhetoric for no fucking reason.

And yeah, I know...some of you will type some words into google (I can hear the click clack already) and try to prove why our anti-green peace efforts are toootally worth it.
But, honestly, I would rather you just sit back and think on it for a little. That's what did it for me.....

I wasn't dazzled by your bullshit. The one guy you found, Moore, is a:

"paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry. He is an outspoken proponent of nuclear energy and skeptical of sole human responsibility for climate change"

In other words, he's got skin in the game. Never trust someone with skin in the game. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Once again, undercunt shoots himself in the foot... Nuclear power plants don't burn fossil fuels. If we are forced to rely less on carbon fuels, the nuclear industry stands to BENEFIT as a cleaner alternative energy source. If Moore has "skin in the game" as a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, he is taking the wrong side of the argument.

Think before you post, dipshit.

.

Stop lying and try to refute the post above Mr. Moore. TheDaliLama has defeated you. Originally Posted by DSK

Right after you admit you didn't know what the greenhouse effect was and thought it was unproven.

Just a few centuries ago, Aztec priests stood on top of their stone temples and made similar claims correlating human sacrifice with the rising of the sun. As one can readily see, correlation does not confer causation. Even a twelve-year old can see that, shamman. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The Aztec empire collapsed over 500 years ago. That's not a few centuries, you lying malignant cunt. You've also just made the case against religion in any form. Thanks. They also had no scientific studies to back up their supposed correlation between sacrifice and the rising of the sun. So your point is moot.

Once again, undercunt shoots himself in the foot... Nuclear power plants don't burn fossil fuels. If we are forced to rely less on carbon fuels, the nuclear industry stands to BENEFIT as a cleaner alternative energy source. If Moore has "skin in the game" as a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, he is taking the wrong side of the argument.

Think before you post, dipshit.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

Or he's a fucking idiot. Like you. He is a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry. What he does after that isn't my concern.

Here's what I don't get about you guys (idiots, I should say).

Say that I'm right, and you're wrong. Say that I'm right in assuming that humans are causing a major effect on this planets climate. After all, I do have a majority of the science to back me up.
What is the worst that could happen? Well, the future of the ENTIRE HUMAN RACE could be in jeopardy. If not your children, then your children's children will inhabit an earth with a much harsher climate than the one we live in. Unable to go outside, unable to enjoy the seasons we've come to enjoy.
P.S. Just so you know, the earth is already predicted to be uninhabitable in about 2 billion years due to global warming without human effect. What scientists argue is that that man-made climate change will bring that process around much sooner.




Now take the flip side of that argument. Say that you're right, and I'm wrong.
What's the worst that could happen?

Companies would be forced not to pollute our waters and our environment.

Oil companies that really control our economy would be replaced, or at least be given competition, by alternative energy sources which will only result in lower prices for both oil and alternative energy.

I don't know how many times I might have to repeat this: but OIL IS A NON-RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE. That means that, maybe in a 100 years or maybe in a 1000, we will be running out of oil. We should be looking for alternative energy anyway, if we are to survive beyond that horizon. I would be rather proud to possibly be the generation that saves the planet.

You might be driving an electric car instead of one that relies on a NON-RENEWABLE energy source. I drive a Tesla model S and a Ford Focus Electric. They're both a car-owners dream. Easy to maintain, cost less (no gas cost), and quiet as a mouse. Also, My Tesla goes 0-60 in about 4 seconds. Enough bragging, I'm trying to tell you that electric vehicles are far superior to gas vehicles anyway, except perhaps for cross country road trips.
As an alternative you could reduce your car trips and use bikes and/or your feet to get to your destinations. Heaven knows some of you fat-asses need the exercise.

You might green proof your home, which will save you thousands for as long as your home uses power.


Worst comes to worst, your wife will be forcing you to eat veggie patties every Wednesday.
So what, again, is the argument against global warming? Other than "fuck Al Gore" and "Obummer"? Apply any degree of rationality (Pascals wager Lusty?), use any type of common sense, and you come out as a loser, especially because the alternative is so drastic. LMAO you motherfuckers make absolutely no sense; following behind your party's rhetoric for no fucking reason.

And yeah, I know...some of you will type some words into google (I can hear the click clack already) and try to prove why our anti-green peace efforts are toootally worth it.
But, honestly, I would rather you just sit back and think on it for a little. That's what did it for me..... Originally Posted by shanm

Asking these chimps to think is like asking dogs to play poker.

Or he's a fucking idiot. Like you. He is a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry. What he does after that isn't my concern. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Wow. First you tell us the guy isn't credible because he is paid by the nuclear industry. Then you say it “isn't my concern” that he takes a position against the interests of the industry he is paid by? If anything, that should make him MORE credible, you knucklehead. And it makes YOU the idiot. Congratulations, undercunt. Every day you prove my post below:

You suck at making a coherent argument. You suck at not contradicting yourself. You suck at debate. You suck at logical thinking. You suck at persuading anyone you are not a complete idiot. You suck at telling the truth about your multiple handles. You suck at posting on a hooker board. You suck at life, undercunt. It really sucks to be you, doesn't it??? Originally Posted by lustylad

Right after you admit you didn't know what the greenhouse effect was and thought it was unproven. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Get a grip on reality.

You are correct this is what happens when wannabe Christians like Rick Perry play around with God. The Bible says don't take the Lord thy God's name in vain- because God could seek retribution.
This also happened with George W. Bush proclaiming he was a God Fearing Christian- what God fearing Christian sends people to two wars??? Originally Posted by wellendowed1911

OK - it took me awhile, you are pretty good at it, but now I'm certain you are mocking Christianity. You cannot possibly mean what you post - no one could be that clueless.

Wow. First you tell us the guy isn't credible because he is paid by the nuclear industry. Then you say it “isn't my concern” that he takes a position against the interests of the industry he is paid by? If anything, that should make him MORE credible, you knucklehead. And it makes YOU the idiot. Congratulations, undercunt. Every day you prove my post below: Originally Posted by lustylad

It doesn't necessarily make him more credible. It makes him fucking stupid, just like you. I said he wasn't credible. He isn't. Do a little research. He's the guy who said Roundup was safe to drink. Then when offered a glass, responded that he wasn't an idiot. You really want to go to bat for a dumbass like that? Be my guest. My point was that he isn't credible. He is not.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_6956034.html

Get a grip on reality. Originally Posted by DSK

Dr. Moore, your new favorite butt buddy, apparently, said that Roundup was safe to drink, but wouldn't drink a drop of it on-air. Why? Because he said he wasn't stupid.

The Aztec empire collapsed over 500 years ago. That's not a few centuries, you lying malignant cunt. You've also just made the case against religion in any form. Thanks. They also had no scientific studies to back up their supposed correlation between sacrifice and the rising of the sun. So your point is moot. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Cortes declared victory over the Aztecs in 1521, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas; so, it hasn't even been 500 years yet let alone "over 500 years" since the Aztec empire collapsed. Furthermore, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, "500 years" is still just "a few centuries" when compared with the span of human history. FYI, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, great scientists, such as Newton and Copernicus, used science to gain knowledge about their religion. Lastly, you do realize you denigrated your people, the Mexica, in your post, don't you, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas?

Cortes declared victory over the Aztecs in 1521, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas; so, it hasn't even been 500 years yet let alone "over 500 years" since the Aztec empire collapsed. Furthermore, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, "500 years" is still just "a few centuries" when compared with the span of human history. FYI, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, great scientists, such as Newton and Copernicus, used science to gain knowledge about their religion. Lastly, you do realize you denigrated your people, the Mexica, in your post, don't you, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas?

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

A few is widely regarded as three or less. You lied.

Care to share a link on your scientific claim? Science used to gain knowledge about religion? Other than that it's bullshit? Galilei found out just how understanding the church really was over a hundred years later, when he added to Copernicus' work and was labeled a heretic. You'd be the gruber groober that thinks the church has any interest in real science.

A few is widely regarded as three or less. You lied.

Care to share a link on your scientific claim? Science used to gain knowledge about religion? Other than that it's bullshit? Galilei found out just how understanding the church really was over a hundred years later, when he added to Copernicus' work and was labeled a heretic. You'd be the gruber groober that thinks the church has any interest in real science. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Copernicus was in the Church's employ when he was working with celestial observations to produce a functional calendar for the Church, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. [...] This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called "Lord God" παντοκρατωρ [pantokratōr], or "Universal Ruler". [...] The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, [and] absolutely perfect. (Principia, Book III)

You'd also do well to note, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas, that the Church, during Galileo's lifetime, firmly held to the celestial science advanced by another preeminent scientist: Aristotle.