"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 14:22:42 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .

John, what you seem to forget is that scientists use SCIENCE.
Regardless of their political bend. The basis of their report is not
their political referendum, it's the science that they use, to know
for a FACT, what Bush is doing to the environment.

Oh, I see. So there is always 100% agreement among scientists because
they all use science. So scientists are never biased one way or the
other.

Do you really believe that?

John H

John, even if 1000 scientists use what they all consider "valid methods"
to
come to a variety of conclusions, their conclusions are still more
accurate
than stating that a hack politician's environmental policies are okie
dokie,
just because you (a non-scientist) happen to think so. This is especially
true if you are lacking knowledge about certain aspects of his policies.

Speaking of knowledge, here is a link to a brief description of how
pollution credits work. It's absolutely biased, but completely accurate.
You
can find plenty of others by searching for "pollution credits".

http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/D...0/credits.html


Did I state that Bush's environmental policies were okie dokie, or
words to that effect? I don't think so.

My post was in response to b'asskissers assertion that by virtue of
their title, 'scientists', these people couldn't be biased.

John H

Earlier, you said "Same principle. The fact that you say Bush occupies the
extreme you stated (i.e. 'damage as much as possible'), doesn't make it so."
You and I are defining "extremes" differently. I consider it extreme to
comment on the science of pollution and air/water quality if you've admitted
knowing nothing about the aspect on which you are commenting.