Kochs push their errand boy for GOP nomination

[biggunsbob]

ENVIRONMENTAL VIOLATIONS & POLLUTION

In 2000, the Clinton administration leveled a 97-count indictment against Koch Industries for covering up the discharge of 91 tons of benzene, a carcinogen, from its refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas. The company was liable for $350 million in fines; 4 Koch employees faced up to 35 years in prison. “The Koch Petroleum Group eventually pleaded guilty to one criminal charge of covering up environmental violations, including the falsification of documents, and paid a twenty-million-dollar fine” (Jane Mayer, “Covert Operations”, The New Yorker, August 30, 2010).
The federal government sued Koch in 1995 over a reported 300 oil spills at pipelines owned by the company, which dumped an estimated 3 million gallons of oil into lakes and streams in 6 states. In 2000, Koch settled the case and agreed to pay $30 million in civil penalties.
“In 1999, a jury found Koch Industries guilty of negligence and malice in the deaths of two Texas teen-agers in an explosion that resulted from a leaky underground butane pipeline” (Mayer). See the National Transportation Safety Board’s report on the accident.
A jury found Koch Industries guilty in 1999 of stealing millions of gallons of oil from public and Indian lands through fraudulent mismeasuring. This concluded a 20-year long legal battle between Charles and David Koch and their estranged brother, Bill Koch, who revealed the scheme and spearheaded the lawsuit. See the 60 Minutes story about the case.
The University of Massachusetts at Amherst’s Political Economy Research Institute released a study this year that named Koch Industries one of the top ten air polluters in the United States.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL

“Since 1997, the Koch foundations have contributed over $48 million in grants to climate opposition groups. More than half that total, almost $25 million, was given since 2005″ (Greenpeace, “Koch Industries Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine”, March 2010).
Opposition groups included the Mercatus Center (received over $9 million), which suggested in 2001 that global warming would be “beneficial, occurring at night, in the winter, and at the poles,” and Americans for Prosperity (received over $5 million), which organized a national “Hot Air Tour” to build opposition to clean energy legislation (Greenpeace).
In January, Koch Industries sent out an internal newsletter article casting doubt on the climate change consensus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[TheVictors]

They're spending money to fight the propaganda war that's trying to fundamentally transform our economy and dedicate trillions of dollars to alternative energy and destroy America's economic competitiveness before the debate is even settled.

And the Heritage Foundation was never out there saying smoking wasn't bad for you. That's the Heartland Institute and it's not on the list of Koch supported think tanks on Wikipedia. On the Heartland Institute's Wikipedia page it does mention they received a whopping $25,000 from the Charles G Koch Charitable Foundation. They further state that the money was ear marked for research in healthcare, not climate change and not specifically for "smoking isn't bad for you" research. You need to fact check some more.

It seems like there is a lot of misinformation out there about the Koch's and their "agenda" and it's gotten absolute and full buy-in, that it's become a dog whistle for the left. Now, all you have to do is tie the Koch brothers to something and lefties are instantly against whatever it is. I honestly knew almost nothing about the Koch's before I came to this forum and the name was being thrown around so much by you and the uber libs that I decided to look into it. Not surprisingly, I found much of it to be untrue.

Dude ...we have a LPE fund we distribute and had a book we could send out, touting private equity and VC.

It was written by Bain capital .....

We recycled all the books.

 

[biggunsbob]

Seven Companies Polluting the World Without Consequences.
2013

The only thing more horrifying than rampant industrial pollution is pollution without consequences. Yet, companies across the globe freely dump toxic substances into the environment and get off with minimal punishments, sometimes even walking away from a pollution incident without being held accountable. That leaves residents, and governments, with the bill for cleaning up potentially life-threatening environmental pollution, a process that may take decades. Take a look at some of the worst offenders.

1. Williams Energy

This company’s in the news this week thanks to a benzene spill near Parachute, Colorado. Williams processes fracked natural gas and managed to spill almost 250 barrels of mixed natural gas liquid, which inevitably made its way into the waterway. Two months later, residents are waiting for an explanation — and for punishments for Williams Energy. Lawmakers in the state have just addressed an outdated law capping fines at $10,000, but their actions are meaningless unless the state is ready to take action and actually levy those fines.

2. Northrop Grumman

The aerospace giant generates tremendous amounts of pollution in the course of its daily operations, including at a now abandoned facility in Calverton, New York. As is often the case with industrial pollution, initial evaluations of the site indicated something was going wrong, but now public health officials are realizing that the size of the company’s pollution plume may be much larger than previously estimated. Volatile organic compounds are saturating the groundwater, and no matter how wide and deep officials drill in search of clean water, they’re turning up more pollution. The Navy’s responsible for the cleanup bill here, but Northrop’s operations certainly haven’t been limited to this site.

3. General Electric

It took 30 years, but GE is finally being called to task for its extensive pollution of the Hudson River. The fight over GE’s pollution was one of the seminal battles of the environmental movement, pulling together activists who used a variety of organizing tactics to force the company to take responsibility. Now, that victory is already ringing bittersweet, as the EPA is in the process of relaxing the cleanup requirements, relieving responsibilities for GE without ensuring the river will be safely restored.

4. Dow Chemical

Dow’s polluting activities are legendary — this is the firm behind the horrific Bhopal disaster, for example. But the company is spewing dioxins in waterways, among many other pollution offenses, and regulators seem to be prepared to allow that to keep happening. In fact, the Supreme Court granted Dow what amounts to a free license to pollute despite objections from activists, pollution victims and environmental defense organizations. Institutional support for polluters makes it hard for citizens to fight them, let alone hold them accountable.

5. Rio Tinto

This Australian company’s so infamous, its polluting activities have actually inspired a campaign, No Dirty Gold, centered around cleaning up the mining industry and getting consumers involved in anti-pollution work. Across the world, Rio Tinto is polluting communities with toxic chemicals used in metals extraction and processing, in addition to engaging in blatant human rights violations, particularly in the Global South. Yet, the company remains a powerhouse in the industry, in no small part thanks to relief from fines and regulation provided by friendly politicians.

6. Koch Industries

Seeing this firm on the list probably won’t surprise you, and it might not shock you that this firm is very good at using its lobbying skills to dodge pollution fines. Koch Industries isn’t afraid of throwing its weight around to have fines reduced or rescinded, even as it cuts a swath of pollution across the U.S. At the same, the Koch family is extending its reach into a wide variety of markets and industries including newspapers, making it harder for ordinary citizens to understand the full extent of its polluting activities, human rights violations and abuses of power, because it controls the source of information and exchange in some communities.

7. U.S. Steel

When pollution is effectively your business, you tend to argue against limitations on pollution across your working area, especially state-mandated limits on individual pollution. U.S. Steel has been fighting attempts to regulate pollution in several states, including Indiana, where environment advocates have called for a crackdown on the company’s operations. They note that allowing U.S. Steel to continue discharging harmful materials like mercury into the Great Lakes causes tremendous environmental harm, and it has had ample opportunities to clean up its act on its own: it’s time for the company to get serious.

Want to see some more heavy polluters? The Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts generates an annual “Toxic 100” list with details on major sources of pollution. You might find it a helpful consumer guide as well as an eye-opening look at the state of pollution in the U.S. and around the world.

 

[Spartanmack]

I apologize, i mixed heartland and heritage up, heartland is the big climate denier think tank that takes money from oil and gas companies. There are also anonymous donors giving millions to them.

they've only given 79 million to climate denial groups

they fund the heritage foundation, americans for prosperity, cato institute, manhattan instittue and they all question climate change. AFP got 400 congressmen to sign a pledge against climate change legistlation that doesn't include the same tax cuts

they're the poster children of purchasing political influence

Again, I'm not saying they're not trying to influence elections or defending the right for any group to do it - I don't know why I have to keep explaining that. I'm saying you can't have it both ways. I felt the same way about all BS exemptions in the ACA. Plus, your argument presupposes that the debate on man made climate change is settled. They, along with lots of other people, scientists included, don't agree. You don't get to pick and chose which side gets to have their voice heard. Either all sides and agendas get to dump money into the races or none of them do.

I am also saying I don't agree that union PACs are somehow a "better" form of influence. They're not altruistic champions of the people. They're about extracting as much as they can, eliminating all forms of merit based evaluation and compensation and making it impossible to fire anyone for any reason while reducing competitiveness and opportunity for others. And they only represent a small minority of workers yet their influence is massive. They're BAD. Period.

 

[KAWDUP]

good heavens! these Union ruffians must be stopped!

[insert standard anecdotal evidence about the UAW member your uncle knows who sleeps 8 hours a day on the job, but can't be fired because of the unions & this is why unemployment is high in Detroit and all unions are bad]

Not so sure you get the point. Typical - assume what I meant instead of asking. Someday you might just get it right. My point was the strength and power of certain unions far outpaces the current UAW, which might have been the union you were thinking about in this thread. I no longer feel threatened when I cross a picket line at a car manufacturing plant, but I wouldn't even attempt it for a teamsters strike. They can still get away with being thugs.

BTW I have your anecdote ready and waiting - years ago I worked installing industrial equipment at plants all over the Detroit area as an outside contractor. Ever try to pick up a tool at a car plant in those days? You would think someone tried to kill their child. I also worked as a contractor for Ford in their dealer network group. The white collar union had numbers of people who had 15 years in that came in read the paper all day and then left getting paid way more than any contractor ever made. Back then, my father worked in Labor Relations for Ford, which I believe became the modern day HR. The stories he could tell about the grievances that would be filed would blow your mind. Not that this has even one stupid thing to do with my point in this thread, but I have first hand experience with unions over several decades starting when I was a senior in high school. I draw no conclusions about Detroit or unions in general. So kiss my ass about your stupid comment.

 

[KAWDUP]

I'm against unions funding candidates as well, but i disagree on the equivelance when it comes to the Koch brothers. I don't think the sierra club can come up with 100m to match them

My comment to you had nothing to do with unions, just agendas of very strong lobby groups in Washington.

 

[Michchamp]

Not so sure you get the point. Typical - assume what I meant instead of asking. Someday you might just get it right. My point was the strength and power of certain unions far outpaces the current UAW, which might have been the union you were thinking about in this thread. I no longer feel threatened when I cross a picket line at a car manufacturing plant, but I wouldn't even attempt it for a teamsters strike. They can still get away with being thugs.

BTW I have your anecdote ready and waiting - years ago I worked installing industrial equipment at plants all over the Detroit area as an outside contractor. Ever try to pick up a tool at a car plant in those days? You would think someone tried to kill their child. I also worked as a contractor for Ford in their dealer network group. The white collar union had numbers of people who had 15 years in that came in read the paper all day and then left getting paid way more than any contractor ever made. Back then, my father worked in Labor Relations for Ford, which I believe became the modern day HR. The stories he could tell about the grievances that would be filed would blow your mind. Not that this has even one stupid thing to do with my point in this thread, but I have first hand experience with unions over several decades starting when I was a senior in high school. I draw no conclusions about Detroit or unions in general. So kiss my ass about your stupid comment.

I don't understand why unions take the hit for bad behavior from members, and spark all these cries for reform, yet you never hear the same thing about management & non-unionized workers. I've seen far worse in that regard, and with larger negative consequences for the company than the odd union guy sleeping on the job...

it's absurd to blame company-wide dysfunction on the workers... that's management's job in every case.

Why aren't incompetent C-level execs or senior management - and believe me, there are plenty of them - a call for higher income taxes & pay reform?

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't frequent this cesspool of bias political talk, so I wasn't aware of your previous stances on publicly funded stadiums. And it's good that you don't ride the extreme "everything he does is right" train that most people on both sides tend to do. Nobody likes a sheep.

So although you thought I was trying to bait you, it was an honest question from a former resident of Wisconsin. Carry on.

It was a pretty far off topic and leading question so I felt adding a little smartass comment to my response was appropriate. I was just busting your chops - there was no bitterness on my part. Thumb just needs to believe I'm angry so he can feel like his trolling isn't a complete waste of time.

 

[Spartanmack]

I don't understand why unions take the hit for bad behavior from members, and spark all these cries for reform, yet you never hear the same thing about management & non-unionized workers. I've seen far worse in that regard, and with larger negative consequences for the company than the odd union guy sleeping on the job...

it's absurd to blame company-wide dysfunction on the workers... that's management's job in every case.

Why aren't incompetent C-level execs or senior management - and believe me, there are plenty of them - a call for higher income taxes & pay reform?

Far worse? I would love to here some stories about job banks for non union workers, non-union laborers getting caught on film smoking pot and boozing during lunch breaks and not getting fired, non-union rubber rooms where incompetent employees or employees who commit crimes on the job get to sit and play cards all day for full pay for years.

How would higher income taxes fix competence related problems at any level of an organization?

 

[KAWDUP]

I don't understand why unions take the hit for bad behavior from members, and spark all these cries for reform, yet you never hear the same thing about management & non-unionized workers. I've seen far worse in that regard, and with larger negative consequences for the company than the odd union guy sleeping on the job...

it's absurd to blame company-wide dysfunction on the workers... that's management's job in every case.

Why aren't incompetent C-level execs or senior management - and believe me, there are plenty of them - a call for higher income taxes & pay reform?

OK - need to state this up front - I agree with your points expressed here. I really do. The union should not take that hit, but they take a hit for the same reason the Koch brothers do, they push a highly polarizing agenda, and are very good at lobbying for legislation that help their own causes.

Someone made the point that the Koch brothers are much worse due to scale - I disagree with that. I don't agree with everything they push for, but I agree with some of it, just as I agree that the unions should not have to pay for gross mismanagement with their hard earned money and/or pensions. My argument is that unions can be every bit as self-serving as all the other big lobbies in Washington. I mentioned two of them that are about as strong as they get.

 

[Michchamp]

OK - need to state this up front - I agree with your points expressed here. I really do. The union should not take that hit, but they take a hit for the same reason the Koch brothers do, they push a highly polarizing agenda, and are very good at lobbying for legislation that help their own causes.

Someone made the point that the Koch brothers are much worse due to scale - I disagree with that. I don't agree with everything they push for, but I agree with some of it, just as I agree that the unions should not have to pay for gross mismanagement with their hard earned money and/or pensions. My argument is that unions can be every bit as self-serving as all the other big lobbies in Washington. I mentioned two of them that are about as strong as they get.

how can you not agree with that? It's a simple function of the amount of money they have.

You pulled the example of longshoremen striking, and I know the SEIU has been in the news for activism a lot more than the UAW these days, but I hardly think the occassional strike from them, or threat of strike, puts them anywhere near the Business Roundtable, US Chamber of Commerce, Koch Bros, etc. and all their SuperPACs.

Saying "well yeah, but the unions have some power too" doesn't mean their influence on politics is anywhere near what it is for business & the Right. It's not necessarily a Democratic/Republican think either, only to the extent business, the Kochs', and other rich guys like them seem to favor the GOP. Chuck Schumer has been in the tank for Wall Street for a long time, so it's important to consider this an issue of "special interests" having undue influence over the process as a whole, not just who one should vote for.

Although... in the present case, it's unusual to see one candidate (Scott Walker) get so far by essentially being a puppet of a particular couple of oligarchs, and so openly at that.

 

[KAWDUP]

how can you not agree with that? It's a simple function of the amount of money they have.

You pulled the example of longshoremen striking, and I know the SEIU has been in the news for activism a lot more than the UAW these days, but I hardly think the occassional strike from them, or threat of strike, puts them anywhere near the Business Roundtable, US Chamber of Commerce, Koch Bros, etc. and all their SuperPACs.

Saying "well yeah, but the unions have some power too" doesn't mean their influence on politics is anywhere near what it is for business & the Right. It's not necessarily a Democratic/Republican think either, only to the extent business, the Kochs', and other rich guys like them seem to favor the GOP. Chuck Schumer has been in the tank for Wall Street for a long time, so it's important to consider this an issue of "special interests" having undue influence over the process as a whole, not just who one should vote for.

Although... in the present case, it's unusual to see one candidate (Scott Walker) get so far by essentially being a puppet of a particular couple of oligarchs, and so openly at that.

You are still saying that I jumped into this thread to say "well yeah, but the unions have some power too" - but that is not the case. I jumped in to point out that the statement about the Koch brothers agenda being all self-serving without any redeeming qualities is 1) wrong and 2) not any different than any other major lobby group. Unions were an example of other polarizing lobby agendas, not necessarily of being equal in power to Koch Brothers.

There are plenty of others, however, which is my exact point, so I don't see how Koch Brothers agenda is any more self-serving than any of the other agendas of major lobby groups. Scale has nothing to do with that statement, nor does it have anything to do with comparing the amount of power the unions have in relation to the Koch brothers.

 

[sggatecl]

It was a pretty far off topic and leading question so I felt adding a little smartass comment to my response was appropriate. I was just busting your chops - there was no bitterness on my part. Thumb just needs to believe I'm angry so he can feel like his trolling isn't a complete waste of time.

Agreed, it was pretty off topic, I was venting more than anything I guess. It happened weeks ago and it still burns me up more than any of his controversial decisions.

 

[Michchamp]

You are still saying that I jumped into this thread to say "well yeah, but the unions have some power too" - but that is not the case. I jumped in to point out that the statement about the Koch brothers agenda being all self-serving without any redeeming qualities is 1) wrong and 2) not any different than any other major lobby group. Unions were an example of other polarizing lobby agendas, not necessarily of being equal in power to Koch Brothers.

There are plenty of others, however, which is my exact point, so I don't see how Koch Brothers agenda is any more self-serving than any of the other agendas of major lobby groups. Scale has nothing to do with that statement, nor does it have anything to do with comparing the amount of power the unions have in relation to the Koch brothers.

look, as i and others said earlier in the thread, at least unions are advocating for their members. and it's not just about money; working conditions, equal pay for men and women, work place safety, ending child labor, the worker's comp system... all those things have improved for all workers, whether theyre union or not over the 20th century, thanks to the efforts of the unions.

you have to take an absolute (and factually unsupported) position that unions are just plain evil like spartanhack does, in order to conflate union advocacy with what the kochs are doing.

and like KC said, this isn't to say that any public benefits (e.g. welfare) or union labor are free of fraud and scandal, but from the rhetoric on the right you'd think they were 100% corrupt. it's quite frankly absurd to think so, given how successful these programs have been, and how prosperous the nation as a whole was during the 2nd half of the 20th century when they were fully implemented & union membership was high.

and FWIW, unions money is an influence in politics, but it's not on the same level as the Kochs, and similar super PACs. and the really scary thing is, it's not like the Kochs or right wing super PACs are tapped out. they could easily dump more money into these elections if they had to. the same thing doesnt apply for the SEIU, greenpeace, the sierra club, etc

in the walker recall election they spent a lot of money consistently, before any union money ever entered the picture, and it showed from the way walker lead. they were in control from day one of the campaign

 

[Michchamp]

Agreed, it was pretty off topic, I was venting more than anything I guess. It happened weeks ago and it still burns me up more than any of his controversial decisions.

The really infuriating thing about Walker is that those moves seemed more intended to send a signal to his right wing puppetmasters that he's willing to be their garbage boy, and will do anything to pick a fight with the left. there was really no need for the cuts to UW's budget. and the timing of the announcement about his plan for the Bucks' new arena was awful timing... or at least would be if the guy actually cared about governing his state, not pandering to the Kochs, US Chamber of Commerce, etc.

 

[Spartanmack]

look, as i and others said earlier in the thread, at least unions are advocating for their members. and it's not just about money; working conditions, equal pay for men and women, work place safety, ending child labor, the worker's comp system... all those things have improved for all workers, whether theyre union or not over the 20th century, thanks to the efforts of the unions.

you have to take an absolute (and factually unsupported) position that unions are just plain evil like spartanhack does, in order to conflate union advocacy with what the kochs are doing.

and like KC said, this isn't to say that any public benefits (e.g. welfare) or union labor are free of fraud and scandal, but from the rhetoric on the right you'd think they were 100% corrupt. it's quite frankly absurd to think so, given how successful these programs have been, and how prosperous the nation as a whole was during the 2nd half of the 20th century when they were fully implemented & union membership was high.

and FWIW, unions money is an influence in politics, but it's not on the same level as the Kochs, and similar super PACs. and the really scary thing is, it's not like the Kochs or right wing super PACs are tapped out. they could easily dump more money into these elections if they had to. the same thing doesnt apply for the SEIU, greenpeace, the sierra club, etc

in the walker recall election they spent a lot of money consistently, before any union money ever entered the picture, and it showed from the way walker lead. they were in control from day one of the campaign

I'm not taking an absolute view - that's what you're doing. You need to first turn a blind eye to what unions have become and justify their abuses because they helped end child labor decades before you were even born. Then you have to make a completely wrong-headed "correlation = causation" argument to further justify supporting unions because you mistakenly think American thrived after WWII because of unions. Then you have to ignore the fact that OSHA, anti-discrimination laws and dozens of other regulations make them obsolete. Then you have to deny that there has been a large shift in demographics, technology and global trade in the last 70 years to assume our economy can still sustain above market wages and egregious benefits packages and still remain competitive. Then you have to say things like 'people opposed to unions give incompetent C-suite executives a free pass' playing the shell game and putting words in peoples' mouths without knowing what they actually think about executive pay because you think that somehow discredits their anti-union arguments. Basically, you have to be ignorant and foolish.

The rest of this is just typical michchamp mumbo jumbo. What the koch brothers are doing is no different than what the unions are doing - and trying to say it is just shows your bias. You're butthurt that the Koch's are winning. Even if you were right, which let's be clear that you're not, Unions only represent 10% of the workforce, yet their influence on elections is MASSIVE. That's undemocratic whether you believe the Koch's only represent 2 Americans or a much larger subset of the population (like the rest of American workers that are getting screwed by pro-union government cronyism).

 

[Spartanmack]

The really infuriating thing about Walker is that those moves seemed more intended to send a signal to his right wing puppetmasters that he's willing to be their garbage boy, and will do anything to pick a fight with the left. there was really no need for the cuts to UW's budget. and the timing of the announcement about his plan for the Bucks' new arena was awful timing... or at least would be if the guy actually cared about governing his state, not pandering to the Kochs, US Chamber of Commerce, etc.

I actually laughed out loud when I read that - if that's not the pot calling the kettle black, what is? Classic.

 

[Michchamp]

I'm not taking an absolute view - that's what you're doing. You need to first turn a blind eye to what unions have become and justify their abuses because they helped end child labor decades before you were even born. Then you have to make a completely wrong-headed "correlation = causation" argument to further justify supporting unions because you mistakenly think American thrived after WWII because of unions. Then you have to ignore the fact that OSHA, anti-discrimination laws and dozens of other regulations make them obsolete. Then you have to deny that there has been a large shift in demographics, technology and global trade in the last 70 years to assume our economy can still sustain above market wages and egregious benefits packages and still remain competitive. Then you have to say things like 'people opposed to unions give incompetent C-suite executives a free pass' playing the shell game and putting words in peoples' mouths without knowing what they actually think about executive pay because you think that somehow discredits their anti-union arguments. Basically, you have to be ignorant and foolish.

I guess an in-depth discussions of unions is a topic for another thread?

I didn't know companies stopped discriminating, violating safety standards, and screwing employees out of pay and benefits because they were against the law now, and these laws are adequate to address such practices. Please tell me more.

 

[Spartanmack]

I guess an in-depth discussions of unions is a topic for another thread?

I didn't know companies stopped discriminating, violating safety standards, and screwing employees out of pay and benefits because they were against the law now, and these laws are adequate to address such practices. Please tell me more.

oh, so the unions are in law enforcement? or they're picking up the slack where the laws are failing people? Anti-discrimination is there big thing? Please, tell me more.

 

[Sbee]

Again, I'm not saying they're not trying to influence elections or defending the right for any group to do it - I don't know why I have to keep explaining that. I'm saying you can't have it both ways. I felt the same way about all BS exemptions in the ACA. Plus, your argument presupposes that the debate on man made climate change is settled. They, along with lots of other people, scientists included, don't agree. You don't get to pick and chose which side gets to have their voice heard. Either all sides and agendas get to dump money into the races or none of them do.

I am also saying I don't agree that union PACs are somehow a "better" form of influence. They're not altruistic champions of the people. They're about extracting as much as they can, eliminating all forms of merit based evaluation and compensation and making it impossible to fire anyone for any reason while reducing competitiveness and opportunity for others. And they only represent a small minority of workers yet their influence is massive. They're BAD. Period.

Man made climate change isn't settled because of all of the misinformation being flooded into our collective consiousness by the Kochs, Exxon, Southern Company, coal associations, etc. The status quo is very profitable for them. the IPCC conducted a survey and found that 640 scientist beleived in MMGW and 25 didn't believe in it. I guess you'll never have 100 percent consensus. there is the 98% of peer reviewed articles angle but I'm sure you'll discount that, also, 98% sure as hell isn't 100!