With these findings in mind, I’m planning on writing a grant proposal to show whether or not good, hot sex make one happier. Until it’s scientifically proven, it’s only hearsay.

1. The Western diet is bad for you
2. Sleeping beauty is no myth
3. Racists are close-minded
4. Morbid alert! Hanging is bad for the heart
5. Cheating men have strong sexual urges
6. Shy teens find friends online
7. Take smaller bites, eat less
8. Umbrellas protect you from the sun
9. People buy more fruits and veggies when they’re cheaper
10. Bad relationships depress people
11. Reality TV skews reality
12. Drugs and driving don’t mix
13. Women find musicians hot



  1. orchidcup says:

    Sign me up for your study.

    I prefer blondes, brunettes, or redheads with long legs and firm breasts.

    Female gender.

    • normankeena says:

      neah.. yeah genderist.. predic gendersim outlawed in pollywood next yr.

      brown-ette, are short brutish and not to be trusted wif democracy. keep abreasdt of The Times.. did ye say long breasts.. like wwii pilot bombing Brest , thayt france or hollandzor Isle of scilly

      Neah Newtear nate,,, loch hymen.. or woot the scotz say

      braa anim

      happy new yrerz me hearties

      she be right…

  2. Kaboom says:

    Milk is bad for you.

    Scientists found that force feeding lab rats a gallon of milk causes them to explode.

    • normankeena says:

      well that explain why chiner import midwiffee from ahhh forgot name that africian volcano tribe that long lady millkshke

  3. bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

    Everything “is” common sense and hearsay until proven/disproven by science.

    How DO you know what you know, and how do you change your mind?

    I bet……. even the more resonable explanations don’t get to the heart of what some if not many of the studies were actually trying to get to? Take the racism one for instance. Why are old, conservative, Republican Base Groups so racist so often? That rigidty of mind, not wanting to “think” about conflicted evidence, about scientific studies that contradict one’s own warped perception of life’s experiences is consistent with that…. but …. still….. why? Should anyone that has given up thinking actually be allowed to vote? Why???

    Tiger got to hunt,
    Bird got to fly,
    Man got to ask…
    … why, why, why.
    Kurt Vonnegut (Ice Nine I think or was that Cats Cradle?)

    On the issue of meaningless sex with totally hot babes who have to be paid for their part of such studies. What would be the long term effects? What personalities get tired of it and how fast? THEN what do they do???

    Hot meaningless sex. Still attractive in anticipating… but my memory of same causes me to hesitate. Ha, ha.

    Pro’s and con’s to all we do.

    Let the mindless objectification continue.

    • ± says:

      I’m having a drink to many things you didn’t say. That way I am assured to toasting that which is true.

      • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

        Well, statistics informs us that certainly you are right. Much more is true that I did not say than what I did.

        Life is like that.

        …… I’ll have one with you……Think I’ll have a Baileys with a raw egg thrown in and call it: “Old Egg Nog.”

        Why not?

        • normankeena says:

          serious.. alway see the ‘Nog’ as ‘an oige’ the young.. tir na n’og… land of ethernal yoouth..

          ahhh now ye brinking the bloody irish up in me

    • Dummy Up says:

      RE: … Why are old, conservative, Republican Base Groups so racist so often? /i>

      Talk about being a closed minded bigot!

      Not that there isn’t a little bit of truth to a statement like that. But to blow it out of proportion into the stratosphere of ridiculousness by implying that ALL conservative Republican leaning groups are racist is EXACTLY why we need these stupid little studies.

      Some people are just plain stupid and need the proof!

  4. Glenn E. says:

    Those six steps are not correct, if that’s supposed to be The Scientific Method. Asking questions, isn’t part of it. “Make” or formulate an Hypothesis, is step 2. Step 3 is, Devise a theory to be tested, true or false. Then the next three steps are pretty much right. I’m surprise the term “Hypothesis” wasn’t dumbed down to just a Theory. That seems to be the way media reports science these days. Everything is a theory or a fact. When theories are really just a means of testing an hypothesis. They are not all just facts waiting to happen. Or be consensused. As appears to happen these days, without testing or any peer review. That last one should be step 6, Peer Review. Then step 7, Publish findings. But these days they take short cuts.

    • So What? says:

      The scientific method has four steps

      1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

      2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

      3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

      4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

      • deowll says:

        And which of these weren’t used by fans of AGW or failed?

        They have routinely use adjusted data which in many cases can be shown to be faulty like adjusting the 30s to be cooler along with the medieval warming phase.

        The IPCC has backed away from this to some degree in the full version of their last report and admitted that natural factors have played a role in recent warming which leaves the real role played by CO2 in the recent warming a bit up in the air.

        Their predictions for the past 16 yrs haven’t matched reality. They are scrambling wildly to explain where all the heat went.

        It isn’t clear that the warming of the last half of the 20th century wasn’t part of a normal warming cycle combined with recovery from the little ice age. Nobody has actually proved anything other than no reference to CO2 is needed to explain what happened and what happened appears to be within the limits of what happened in the past.

        I am of course about to be savagely attacked by the devote. Fair enough I suppose after all I have questioned their faith.

        • ± says:

          The most egregious AGWer tactic is to take a set of data and arbitrarily scale the x and/or y axis so the graph fits on top of some other arbitrarily scaled graph thereby ‘proving’ causality.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Say P/M==can you give an example of an “arbitrary scale” applied to an x/y axis?

            I understand “picking” a data set to overlap with another one to show similar trends and what not but don’t really picture how something as artificial as what you describe takes place.

            Sounds odious.

            ………..say what??

          • ± says:

            bobbo, it must be a slow night, because I think I’m wasting my time here with you.

            Check out the graph at http://hopisen.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/mysteryone.jpg It is totally irrelevant what this graph is about. But let’s speculate that a truthful representation of whatever was being currently shown on the y axis stretched up to 500, should actually be shown (still at 500) but scaled so it fits where 100 currently is. If this were done, we’d be looking at a graph of essentially a strait line. Nothing to worry about looking at a straight line is there? So we need to lie a little or a lot so we turn the straight line into A BIG ASSED BUMP by scaling the y axis numbers to the point where we can get some more funding. This is one lie tactic very commonly employed by AGWers to be consumed by people who are clueless about reading graphs. The other one is randomly taking seemingly unrelated data (that “needs” to be correlated) and massage the axis scales so you can lay the graphs nicely on top of each other.

            But don’t let me dissuade you from your religion.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            P/M–in all honesty, I think it does matter what the graph is about. A single graph standing alone doesn’t show any stretching or fitting to make correlations look more plausible.

            Don’t you need to have the “original” (truthful) graph/data and then the manipulated one to show what you are talking about?

            I don’t see any “bump” at all in the linked graph. It looks like the often seen hockey stick phenomenon when talking about tipping points and such.

            My religion: being pragmatic. That means more or less being scientific and changing my opinion when the facts/science changes. No dogma.

            I can “make sense” of what you say but when doing so with manipulating graphs, often it is just exactly to do what you say: show the correlation between two phenomenon that have some other variable that needs to be accommodated. This can be done for clarity, or as you say, to fool the gullible. But this manipulation, absent just a simple LIE, should be obvious from the charts themselves in that the x/y axes are labeled to show what they represent.

            So, I am back asking for you to provide an example of exactly what you are talking about rather than an irrelevant graph with a tangential, at best, explanation.

            I suspect you are talking about “something” but don’t have the exact issue at hand? Yes, irritating when that happens.

            I might be back to a common theme, that numbers and statistics don’t actually “lie” so much as its just that so many people don’t understand what is presented so that its PEOPLE that lie about what the numbers mean.

            Know what I mean? aka==where is the “bump” in your linked graph?????

            Ha, ha.

          • MikeN says:

            Sometimes they just flip the axes upside down. The latest IPCC report shows a reconstruction of temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere, that has within it data from proxies in the Northern Hemisphere!

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Ok Mickey, accepting that as true, such a presentation accurately labeled/described in the footnotes would not be an example of what P/M is postulating as best as I can make that out.

            Seems to me the issue you raise is that there is a lack of data for the Southern Hemisphere so the “best fix” for that is to mirror the data in the Northern Hemisphere RATHER THAN use other data sets one can imagine?

            Just exactly what they should do.

            Are you thinking of anything more/contrary?? After all, we do have my religion to serve.

          • MikeN says:

            So if I’m lacking data on Florida, I should just use data from Pennsylvania and report that? Exactly what they should do?

            And this is in line with what PM is suggesting. If I have a chart that shows lower temperatures, and it gets used as higher temperatures, even someone with your reading comprehension problems should be able to see that that is a problem. Search for Saturday Night Live, Upside Down Mann, and Tiljander if you want to see the charts.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            OH Mickey—so sad, we almost had more than .1 honest/intelligent conversation.

            Why you do dat?

            If the data for the Southern Hemisphere is missing…. what would YOU do?

            If you aren’t a fucktard, which is certainly an open question right now, you use the data set thought to be the most probably accurate. Seems to me an equal distance from the equator on the North side makes sense if the data from other North/South comparisons shows that to be likely. Gut hunch says that is likely more accurate than choosing a data set from the North Pole or the Middle of the Sahara Desert.

            Do you think????

            Ooops==Do you think…… otherwise??

            What a dope.

            Keeey-rhist. Whats wrong with you loons? You see conspiracy and stupidity everywhere you look…… but everywhere is not a mirror.

            HaW, hAw. You boys crack me up.

            All that waste. Embrace the Horror.

          • MikeN says:

            You think data is missing from the Southern Hemisphere? You know nothing of which you speak and are making wild guesses.

          • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

            Correct. Since you provided no link and no details, I just made my best guess.

            So now…. you are saying the IPCC issued a report that fraudulently replaced known Southern Data for Northern Data?

            So…what was the effect of this? I again will presume to show that GW is happening whereas the correct Southern Data if used would show that GW is not happening?

            Is that what you think Bunky????

            bwhahahahahah.

            Foolish Hooman.

          • MikeN says:

            Thinking like yours is probably what got those so-called scientists stuck in the ice. Oops, bobbo told us it’s OK to use data from the Arctic. Difference is just an ant.

          • pedro says:

            Proof that AGW is a religion: It has been confirmed that GW (AKA climate change) happens whenever the flying spaghetti monster farts

      • So What? says:

        The study missed the most obvious of all. I am surrounded by idiots.

      • Captain Obvious says:

        No analysis?

      • Rick says:

        According to SMUT (Scientific Method of Universal Trolling) you can have as many steps as required to illicit a bitter reply from the masses.

    • normankeena says:

      had the good fortune

      word ‘proof’ this local lingo.. yet mean ‘too test’

      lucky bolix me

  5. Glenn E. says:

    1. The Western diet is bad for you.

    The Western diet wasn’t designed to be good for the public. It was designed to be good for agriculture. The USDA came up with its “guidelines”, after consulting the food industry, on what needed to be pushed. So you see a lot of “Grain” in there, to satisfy the processed food industry.

    2. Sleeping beauty is no myth

    Yeah, but only supermodels and movie stars can afford to have someone else read all their emails.

    3. Racists are close-minded

    I think they got this reversed. Racism does not produce a closed mind. But a closed mind very likely produces racism. People who want to be racist, go looking for “scientific” justification. And one racist jerk once publish a “study” proving his bias. Which was later disproved. But there are many today, who still believe it. Because they’re closed minded to start with.

    4.
    Duh! The 13 Most Obvious Findings of 2013
    By Stephanie Pappas, Senior Writer | December 26, 2013 09:42am ET
    Musician with a guitar
    This is hot, according to one of the less-surprising studies of 2013.
    Credit: ollyy,
    View full size image

    Common sense is no replacement for science; plenty of “everyone knows” knowledge has had its legs cut out from under it by a well-designed study. Nevertheless, some research turns up results that don’t exactly shock and awe.

    Such no-duh research usually has a serious underlying purpose, from the study of why people cheat to the roots of racism. Researchers have to understand the basics of everyday phenomena in order to understand them, after all.

    Here’s a sampling of the unsurprising research of 2013 — with a few notes on why scientists bothered.

    1. The Western diet is bad for you

    Wait … fried Snickers bars and hot dogs aren’t the foundations of a well-balanced diet? The “Western diet” of processed and fried foods with a side of sweets and red meat increases the likelihood of premature death, researchers reported in April in The American Journal of Medicine, to the surprise of no one.

    The study was slightly different than other research into how Twinkies can kill, in that it assessed overall health in old age rather that the effect of diet on specific diseases. [7 Foods You Can Overdose On]

    2. Sleeping beauty is no myth

    News bulletin: Baggy eyes, puffy skin and a bleary expression do not make for a hot look. Research published in September in the Journal of Clinical Sleep Medicine reveals the better you sleep, the better you look.

    Obvious on a day-to-day basis, no doubt — and the reason make-up was invented. But this study went beyond the morning after to find that several months of good sleep make a difference in a person’s appearance. The participants were patients being treated for sleep apnea and heavy snoring, breathing problems that can disrupt sleep without a person knowing it. After treatment, independent raters judged the participants as younger and more attractive compared with photos taken before treatment.

    3. Racists are close-minded

    Few would associate racism with open-mindedness. A study published in January in the journal Psychological Science reveals that, sure enough, racism produces a closed mind.

    People prompted to believe racial stereotypes by reading a false scientific study became less open-minded. Interestingly, this close-mindedness led to less creativity overall, even in activities having nothing to do with race. Rigid, categorical thinking underlies both racist beliefs and a lack of creativity, the researchers said.

    4. Hanging is bad for the heart.

    Some details would be nice. Is that hanging by the hands or by the neck? Right side up, or upside down? Does floating weightless in space, count?

    5. Cheating men have strong sexual urges.

    Sounds misstated. Men generally would have “stronger” sexual urges, than women. But not all men “cheat” on a partner. The problem with the study, is that it probably doesn’t identify men who don’t think they are cheating, when they are. Because they think of their marital commitment or relationship, as something different. From men who don’t cheat. And then there’s the question of whether or not children are involved? So I’d say, on the face of it, this study is flawed. Because all they did was poll male college students, for free no doubt.

    7. Take smaller bites, eat less.

    Sounds good. But today’s processed food tastes like crap, when it cools off. So we tend to eat it fast, before it does. Or does anyone think cold pizza tastes better than hot pizza? Dang, now I want a hot pizza.

    9. People buy more fruits and veggies when they’re cheaper

    Too bad groceries don’t price them cheaper, when they’re freshest. The price only comes down to move produce, when its either too plentiful or too close to spoiling. And what doesn’t sell, ends up in store made hot dishes, cold sandwiches and salad bars. Surprise.

    11. Reality TV skews reality.

    “Reality” Tv is heavily edited. Unlike the reality of real life. So much of the bad, and unfavorable, reality experiments, are left on the series’ cutting room floor. Whatever doesn’t please the producers, the sponsors, and the Tv ratings system. Gets the chop. You can bet there were rotten kids, that Super Nanny never straightened out. But you never saw them.

    13. Women find musicians hot.

    Almost everyone likes novelty. And musicians are somewhat rare. One generally thinks of them as performing in night clubs, or in famous bands. Not in orchestras, in small theater houses. And street musicians, may not even be able to afford a place to live. So the illusion of their life, as Tv and movies portray them, is what’s “hot” to women. Just as fashion models are hot to men, until they learn how boring and useless they really are.

    • normankeena says:

      ‘tony cohan our st. reality st. his dad worked in a band and got off morning busstop at zone inner city.. before our gafz…

      serious.. the man was a gentleman..

      now the single lady next door she took here dogs into her bath…

      opps my mind spinds me a tail

      • normankeena says:

        this needz elaboration

        ye see republic ireland din’t get own national media until like 50yrs after revolution.. or woot ye call such,..

        us kidz never knew , newz reader had his feet in bath soltz.

        not that we waz naive , or dumb..

        me uncle is .. well waz like … sparkz in RTE for yrs and yrs..

        actually.. think this is why tis subject interest me

        his adobted son… eat too much suger and die on the cutting room floor.. overzized

        sad but true

    • normankeena says:

      too tyre too read now… laterz

  6. Dallas says:

    I will not be seen outdoors with an umbrella if it’s too sunny! In the mean time, I’ll suffer – unless it’s Easter and an Easter bonnet is appropriate as Jesus prescribed.

  7. Mr Diesel says:

    Funny D

  8. NewFormatSux says:

    NSA program upheld by judge. Hope you’ve amended your post.

    • So What? says:

      Come on tell me you were surprised.

      • ± says:

        The biggest surprise (or least surprise depending on your viewpoint) will be people who did not expect the supremes to uphold the status quo on this issue.

        • bobbo, the pragmatic existential evangelical anti-theist says:

          The whole point is: The Supremes have not ruled on the issue yet.

          Sheesh.

          Makes me doubt your wisdom of throwing my vote away on low popularity third party candidates.

          Ha, ha.

  9. Captain Obvious says:

    Is there bad, hot sex?

    • normankeena says:

      jobz in jepordy.. where is Jepordy.. hehhe

    • Dummy Up says:

      Q: Is there bad, hot sex?

      A: I suppose that all depends on your sexual orientation and whether or not you’re involved or just watching!

  10. Harry Chapman says:

    “Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.”
    ― Albert Einstein

  11. BracketCreep says:

    Define “racist”.

    • ± says:

      A racist is someone who says something that you don’t like regardless of whether it is true or not.

      • normankeena says:

        ye fukkin hypocatical oath

        • normankeena says:

          such is that… can’t fin sign on this keyboard ‘such is that’ is signed with one dot over two dotz..

          me school teach prick prick prick said .. in gealic… such is that.,.,. therefore because

      • BracketCreep says:

        Sorta like a witch, right?

  12. Uncle Patso says:

    Speaking of “Well, DUH!” news, apparently Republicans hate Food Stamps (SNAP).

    Example: The GOP-controlled Indiana legislature passed a law earlier in the year changing the days on which recipients receive their monthly benefits, starting in January. The stated excuse is that the old schedule disbursed all the funds in the first ten days of each month, which was hard on the grocery stores during that time. But the real reason was a clever way to cut people’s benefits by anywhere from 4% to 42% that month. The funds are disbursed on a day depending on the first letter of the last name of the recipient. People whose names begin with A or B received their benefits on the first of the month under the old system. Under the new system, it will come on the fifth.

    Here’s the chart (look at this in Courier for the columns to line up):

    Last Old New Days Per-
    Name Date Date Lost cent

    AB 1st 5th 4 12.9%
    CD 2nd 7th 5 16.1%
    EFG 3rd 9th 6 19.4%
    HI 4th 11th 7 22.6%
    JKL 5th 13th 8 25.8%
    MN 6th 15th 9 29.0%
    OPQR 7th 17th 10 32.3%
    S 8th 19th 11 35.5%
    TUV 9th 21st 12 38.7%
    WXYZ 10th 23rd 13 41.9%

    To mitigate the loss, for January only, recipients will receive half their usual benefits on the old date and the other half on the new date. This looks perfectly fine on paper: during any calendar month (or year), the amount disbursed is the same, but from the first disbursement date in January to the disbursement date in February, people will have to make their benefits last an extra 4 to 13 days.

    I have searched on the Web for any evidence that the benefits will be prorated to make up for the loss, but no one has mentioned it at all anywhere that I can find.

    • pedro says:

      Good thing demagogues don’t hate anything, right?

    • Dummy Up says:

      I suppose in a liberal’s mind, money grows on trees, no one works to earn their keep and food and housing are free.

      Does that sound anything like a BARN YARD?!

  13. MikeN says:

    For liberals, the answer would probably be Irwin and Pirrong concluding that speculators do not drive up oil prices. The New York Times commissioned a hit piece to attack their research, totally ignoring the facts.