"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 20:51:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
. com...
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?

Absolutely. Good science can not be biased. If it WERE flawed, it
would be easily reputed.

I'm not playing both sides here, but in fact, most good science IS
biased.
Most research begins with a theory and experiments are designed around
that
theory. This doesn't detract from the value of the research, especially
if
other scientists attack the problem from another angle eventually, which
they usually do.

With regard to pollution, you don't hear many (if any) scientists
refuting
results which have been measured repeatedly for the past 20 years. Acid
rain
is a perfect example. At this point in history, only idiots don't believe
that it wrecks bodies of water.


Does that mean Rush Limbaugh is an idiot when it comes to the
environment?

If he believes acid rain is harmless, then yes, he's an idiot. Scientists
have laced coal with tracer chemicals in Ohio power plants and found it in
bodies of water in upstate NY. The rest is simple: Some fish don't live at
certain pH levels. End of story.


And, Doug, how come you're not working???

I'm multitasking.