biggunsbob said:

What is it 95 or 97% of all scientist believe man is causing the earth to warm. But let's listen to the minorty and do nothing about it and kill the planet for future generations. It's not only air pollution but we have tainted water all over this country .
We have 1000"s Flint's all over this country, and now we have a new admistration that does not give a shit about any of this . Great news for all this polluting industries.


https://mic.com/articles/134834/the...e-iceberg-bigger-battles-lie-ahead#.adTMvzJBp


http://theweek.com/speedreads/60218...ater-crisis-stephen-colbert-warns-tip-iceberg

Click to expand...

What percent of scientists once thought the world was flat? Which step of the scientific method tells us to rely on consensus rather than data?

Also, you're 97% figure has been debunked long ago, so not only is consensus not an indication of anything, you're also completely wrong about what the actual consensus is.

Gulo Blue said:

Did not expect you to be a denier.

Click to expand...

we've talked about this before. I believe the conversation should be about pollution and the air we breath and the water we drink, not hyperbole about an unproven bogeyman not backed up by facts propogated by a cabal of scientists chasing research money and profiteering politicians that actively engage in manipulating and falsifying data and suppressing dissent.

biggunsbob said:

Except sadly all Trump is doing is putting 'YES men and women in his administration who will do nothing . Btw it's not me who thinks this. It is people with more knowledge than you and me on the subject who do.
.

Click to expand...

who are these experts? Rachel Maddow? Chris Hayes (the female Rachel Maddow)? Chris Matthews? keep in mind, you're the guy who thinks a physicist knows more about the economic and social impact of Brexit than actual economists.

Spartanmack said:

Chris Hayes (the female Rachel Maddow)?

Click to expand...

LOL! So true.

Spartanmack said:

What percent of scientists once thought the world was flat? Which step of the scientific method tells us to rely on consensus rather than data?

Also, you're 97% figure has been debunked long ago, so not only is consensus not an indication of anything, you're also completely wrong about what the actual consensus is.

Click to expand...

Bullshit ..I could care less if it's 60,70,80 90, 95 or 97.. it has never been debunked at all so stop the lying and give me your great sites that have debunked climate change? It's real and its better to be safe then sorry on future generations.

Spartanmack said:

who are these experts? Rachel Maddow? Chris Hayes (the female Rachel Maddow)? Chris Matthews? keep in mind, you're the guy who thinks a physicist knows more about the economic and social impact of Brexit than actual economists.

Click to expand...

You need to stop watching the fox propaganda channel. I am sure the are giving
The good old nod of approval on Trump's Top Idoits. All tv and radio media is so twisted to the right nowadays I never watch TV news anymore..
I posted that Hawking article and pretty sure I just said he was smarter then most of us on this board. But if I did say he was smarter then economists only time will tell on that one. Keep twisting the The Narrative to suit your purposes like you always do .

Spartanmack said:

we've talked about this before. I believe the conversation should be about pollution and the air we breath and the water we drink, not hyperbole about an unproven bogeyman not backed up by facts propogated by a cabal of scientists chasing research money and profiteering politicians that actively engage in manipulating and falsifying data and suppressing dissent.

Click to expand...

Oh yeah. Maybe it will stick this time.

biggunsbob said:

You need to stop watching the fox propaganda channel. I am sure the are giving
The good old nod of approval on Trump's Top Idoits. All tv and radio media is so twisted to the right nowadays I never watch TV news anymore..
I posted that Hawking article and pretty sure I just said he was smarter then most of us on this board. But if I did say he was smarter then economists only time will tell on that one. Keep twisting the The Narrative to suit your purposes like you always do .

Click to expand...

Mostly to the right? That's a good one, lol.

biggunsbob said:

You need to stop watching the fox propaganda channel. I am sure the are giving
The good old nod of approval on Trump's Top Idoits. All tv and radio media is so twisted to the right nowadays I never watch TV news anymore..
I posted that Hawking article and pretty sure I just said he was smarter then most of us on this board. But if I did say he was smarter then economists only time will tell on that one. Keep twisting the The Narrative to suit your purposes like you always do .

Click to expand...

I don't watch Fox News. I don't even know what channel it is. I recently got rid of cable so I couldn't watch it even if I wanted to.

As far as your "twisting the narrative" comment goes, I have to say it's ironic coming from the guy who can't post without bringing up Bush or Republican obstructionism in every thread. It's also funny that you made that comment in the very post where you segway into Fox News' approval of Trump's cabinet appointments.

biggunsbob said:

Bullshit ..I could care less if it's 60,70,80 90, 95 or 97.. it has never been debunked at all so stop the lying and give me your great sites that have debunked climate change? It's real and its better to be safe then sorry on future generations.

Click to expand...

the 97% is what has been debunked. Climate change itself is open for debate as is man's impact on it. It's not settled no matter how many chicken little idiots just buy the narrative hook, line and sinker.

Spartanmack said:

the 97% is what has been debunked. Climate change itself is open for debate as is man's impact on it. It's not settled no matter how many chicken little idiots just buy the narrative hook, line and sinker.

Click to expand...

Matters of degree are debatable.

That we've changed the atmosphere isn't.

The existence of the greenhouse effect isn't.

Stupid topic to be partisan about and yet there are clear partisan lines.

michchamp said:

sounds like the only decent nomination so far.

he only had a couple minor questionable things in his history. joining the board of Theranos was one, but I guess they kept their BOD in the dark on everything.

he supposedly was able to convince Trump to back off on the psychotic torture shit.

Click to expand...

eh... on second thought... I'm not so sure Mattis is really this outspoken straight shooter he's being made out to be.

when a lot of other generals who witnessed the shitshow Iraq turned out to be under Rumsfeld went public, he kept it to himself. (he wasn't quoted here for example) and more recently, when giving a talk at some event he was overheard asking how many people had access to the recordings before he started talking.

wow... real outspoken guy there.

I understand that there are expectations generals shouldn't be criticizing civilian leadership, and rigtfully so. but if Iraq in the 00's and Rumsfeld presiding over the Pentagon weren't exceptions to the rule, not much is.

maybe Mattis is still the most outspoken of the ones who don't speak out...

I noticed a lot of articles in different places praising Mattis. the whole thing stinks of teh typical Pentagon PR campaigns we all have come to know and love. yellowcake! Al Qaeda in Iraq! The Surge! Etc. etc.