Previous 11 - 20 Next
In fairness, I've never heard reference to "The Adams brothers." John was the one we most associate with the state constitution and John Quincy was the one we think of as most following in his father's political footsteps. Which brothers is it supposed to refer to?
Or the Lockheed Skunkworks fusion reactor could pan out, but I'm not going to count that chicken until it hatches.
Source please? Everything I've read about the abiotic theory suggests it's BS, and anyway the important question was already asked by kabigon187: unless its production rate exceeds our consumption rate, it's small comfort to hear that the Earth slowly produces this resource we need in increasingly massive quantities.
Interesting, but I think this misses the point. It's great that we found another source to delay the inevitable, but that's the fact - oil isn't renewable, and there's an ever-increasing demand for it. We need to be looking much more aggressively at alternate energy sources.
An unusually sensible post for this site. I would only add that a proliferation of voices in the media on both sides of the aisle claiming that Islam in general is a problem and that Muslims in general should be treated with suspicion gives those insidious activists something to point at and declare "See, they already hate us!"
If they'd had assault rifles and gas chambers during the Crusades and the Inquisition, along with modern population numbers, there'd be different numbers. Then again, those were motivated pretty heavily by secular ideals anyway.
Nope - read the FAQ here for how they got that number: More to the point - why aren't the conservatives coming forward with a real, higher percentage of skeptical climatologists.
Or rather, there is a link supporting my position, including a very explanation (in the linked paper) of how they arrived at this number after an exhaustive look at many, many, many studies on climate.
I'm sorry, I thought the 97% figure was widely accepted and the onus was on the one challenging the accepted belief. That was lazy and I apologize for it. You are correct. Here's my proof:
I'm referring to the 90% (closer to 97%, but being generous - look up the consensus project) of serious climatologists. You know, the ones who actually read the emails in the East Anglia thing, instead of the Fox News stories taking them out of context. But don't take my word for it:
Also, about your ranking of the Kochs as 59th - it's kind of BS:
Previous 11 - 20 Next