(01-22-2018 03:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:22 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:18 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 02:37 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 02:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's almost as bad as having anti-science Republicans on Congressional science committees.

I wonder what anti-science really means.

It appears to be used in the same fashion as racist, homophobe, etc. That is, nothing more than name-calling in hopes that the opponent changes behavior/course of action to "prove" their not what they're being called.

But that's a child's game. Rational adults don't need to play it.

It's not a compliment, that's for sure. To me, anti-science means you only go along with scientific evidence if it tells you what you want to hear.

Something tells me the bolded doesn't include you. You're on the left, you're infallible.

Science doesn't care what part of the continuum someone is on.

If science indicates that humans are adversely affecting the atmosphere, and there is mounds of evidence that that is the case, I tend to believe it. Even though I would rather not believe that it's true. The only ones that dispute it - even then, only publicly - are the fossil fuel industry spokespeople.

Please do your part and stop farting.

(01-22-2018 04:06 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:22 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:18 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 02:37 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I wonder what anti-science really means.

It appears to be used in the same fashion as racist, homophobe, etc. That is, nothing more than name-calling in hopes that the opponent changes behavior/course of action to "prove" their not what they're being called.

But that's a child's game. Rational adults don't need to play it.

It's not a compliment, that's for sure. To me, anti-science means you only go along with scientific evidence if it tells you what you want to hear.

Something tells me the bolded doesn't include you. You're on the left, you're infallible.

Science doesn't care what part of the continuum someone is on.

If science indicates that humans are adversely affecting the atmosphere, and there is mounds of evidence that that is the case, I tend to believe it. Even though I would rather not believe that it's true. The only ones that dispute it - even then, only publicly - are the fossil fuel industry spokespeople.

Please do your part and stop farting.

those dayum methane off-gassing moo moos.....what do you do with dems.....

The solution to stink, is simple Stink.

(01-22-2018 02:50 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  (and most of us cringe at times)

You keep saying this.

I do too.

Wonder why it's such a big ******* deal to you when it's me.

(01-22-2018 03:37 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:22 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:18 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 02:37 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I wonder what anti-science really means.

It appears to be used in the same fashion as racist, homophobe, etc. That is, nothing more than name-calling in hopes that the opponent changes behavior/course of action to "prove" their not what they're being called.

But that's a child's game. Rational adults don't need to play it.

It's not a compliment, that's for sure. To me, anti-science means you only go along with scientific evidence if it tells you what you want to hear.

Something tells me the bolded doesn't include you. You're on the left, you're infallible.

Science doesn't care what part of the continuum someone is on.

If science indicates that humans are adversely affecting the atmosphere, and there is mounds of evidence that that is the case, I tend to believe it. Even though I would rather not believe that it's true. The only ones that dispute it - even then, only publicly - are the fossil fuel industry spokespeople.

I'm glad you admitted that you only go with the scientific evidence that supports what you want to hear. Since you desperately want to believe that there's global warm, errr......climate change, you'll believe every scientific quack who tells you you're right and we (skeptics) are wrong.

As I said, you're on the left. That means you're infallible.

Why the hell would I want to believe that humans are adversely affecting the atmosphere? Please explain.

Also, pretty much every climate scientist from every part of the globe sees the evidence as showing global warming. If there are quacks they seem to be on the other side. Just like the ones who tried to pretend that smoking isn't bad for you.

Luckily, we were not killed by an asteroid over the weekend.

(01-22-2018 04:56 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 02:50 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  (and most of us cringe at times)

You keep saying this.

I do too.

Wonder why it's such a big ******* deal to you when it's me.

b/c you don't recognize the goals that have been achieved to date......

I never watched one episode of his reality bs and have stated on too many occasions why I wouldn't buy him a beer.....

however, I have been firm out of the gate how you don't have to like the person to move forward and change the status quo....

I'd pretty much say I've been more vocal about that position than any other from the day he announced.....

I only care about results.....I couldn't give two shites about semantics....that's petty bs....

do you remember, "never underestimate the Donald".....that's where it started....

he's XACLY! what I've been looking for in a leader my entire life......it's not my problem you can't look past his personality flaws......it was never part of my equation in evaluation....

(01-22-2018 05:00 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Luckily, we were not killed by an asteroid over the weekend.

latest rumor is schmuckster the huckster has a case of severe hemorrhoids now.....

(01-22-2018 05:08 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 05:00 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Luckily, we were not killed by an asteroid over the weekend.

latest rumor is schmuckster the huckster has a case of severe hemorrhoids now.....

Well if I were a career politician and was having my ass handed to me by a realty tv star I'd be embarrassed too.

(01-22-2018 04:13 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 04:06 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:22 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:18 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's not a compliment, that's for sure. To me, anti-science means you only go along with scientific evidence if it tells you what you want to hear.

Something tells me the bolded doesn't include you. You're on the left, you're infallible.

Science doesn't care what part of the continuum someone is on.

If science indicates that humans are adversely affecting the atmosphere, and there is mounds of evidence that that is the case, I tend to believe it. Even though I would rather not believe that it's true. The only ones that dispute it - even then, only publicly - are the fossil fuel industry spokespeople.

Please do your part and stop farting.

those dayum methane off-gassing moo moos.....what do you do with dems.....

Personally I roast them over a charcoal fire until they are medium rare but that's just me.

(01-22-2018 03:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:22 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:18 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 02:37 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 02:13 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's almost as bad as having anti-science Republicans on Congressional science committees.

I wonder what anti-science really means.

It appears to be used in the same fashion as racist, homophobe, etc. That is, nothing more than name-calling in hopes that the opponent changes behavior/course of action to "prove" their not what they're being called.

But that's a child's game. Rational adults don't need to play it.

It's not a compliment, that's for sure. To me, anti-science means you only go along with scientific evidence if it tells you what you want to hear.

Something tells me the bolded doesn't include you. You're on the left, you're infallible.

Science doesn't care what part of the continuum someone is on.

If science indicates that humans are adversely affecting the atmosphere, and there is mounds of evidence that that is the case, I tend to believe it. Even though I would rather not believe that it's true. The only ones that dispute it - even then, only publicly - are the fossil fuel industry spokespeople.

They very notion that they lied about the data to keep a narrative alive doesn't necessarily make their views "settled science."

(01-22-2018 08:55 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 04:13 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 04:06 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:22 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  Something tells me the bolded doesn't include you. You're on the left, you're infallible.

Science doesn't care what part of the continuum someone is on.

If science indicates that humans are adversely affecting the atmosphere, and there is mounds of evidence that that is the case, I tend to believe it. Even though I would rather not believe that it's true. The only ones that dispute it - even then, only publicly - are the fossil fuel industry spokespeople.

Please do your part and stop farting.

those dayum methane off-gassing moo moos.....what do you do with dems.....

Personally I roast them over a charcoal fire until they are medium rare but that's just me.

heyall yeah!!! 1.125" thick, 16 oz., 600 degrees......5 mins, flip for 2 mins. then jerk that jaw off the fire.....

I just like to cook'em long enough to kill the bacteria.

(01-22-2018 09:22 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:22 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:18 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 02:37 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I wonder what anti-science really means.

It appears to be used in the same fashion as racist, homophobe, etc. That is, nothing more than name-calling in hopes that the opponent changes behavior/course of action to "prove" their not what they're being called.

But that's a child's game. Rational adults don't need to play it.

It's not a compliment, that's for sure. To me, anti-science means you only go along with scientific evidence if it tells you what you want to hear.

Something tells me the bolded doesn't include you. You're on the left, you're infallible.

Science doesn't care what part of the continuum someone is on.

If science indicates that humans are adversely affecting the atmosphere, and there is mounds of evidence that that is the case, I tend to believe it. Even though I would rather not believe that it's true. The only ones that dispute it - even then, only publicly - are the fossil fuel industry spokespeople.

They very notion that they lied about the data to keep a narrative alive doesn't necessarily make their views "settled science."

They didn't lie about the data.

Well, I don't know about you all but I'm glad we survived 69 hours without the Earth being destroyed by an undetected asteroid.

(01-23-2018 12:05 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 09:22 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:26 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:22 PM)DefCONNOne Wrote:  

(01-22-2018 03:18 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  It's not a compliment, that's for sure. To me, anti-science means you only go along with scientific evidence if it tells you what you want to hear.

Something tells me the bolded doesn't include you. You're on the left, you're infallible.

Science doesn't care what part of the continuum someone is on.

If science indicates that humans are adversely affecting the atmosphere, and there is mounds of evidence that that is the case, I tend to believe it. Even though I would rather not believe that it's true. The only ones that dispute it - even then, only publicly - are the fossil fuel industry spokespeople.

They very notion that they lied about the data to keep a narrative alive doesn't necessarily make their views "settled science."

They didn't lie about the data.

They didn't tell the truth, either.