On 1 Mar 2004 05:26:30 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

John H wrote in message . ..
On 27 Feb 2004 10:21:18 -0800, (basskisser) wrote:

Snipped

What do you get when those very scientists, a highly respected,
nonpartisan group called the Union of Concerned Scientists, go on to
claim that no other president in modern history has so openly misled
the public or been so flagrantly disrespectful of scientific fact and
mountains of irrefutable research, deliberately and systematically
mutilating scientific data in the service of its rather brutal,
pro-corporate, antienvironment agenda?

Ah, yes. The unbiased Union of Concerned Scientists. Here is even more
information on this unbiased group with all the intellectual integrity
of Harry Krause:


John H

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

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"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

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

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"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.

......and in the final analysis, pollution credits may not matter, anyway.
Your boy is managing to alienate former supporters every day. Must be his
hobby.

Go here...
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown....ate=1-Mar-2004

....and scroll about 2/3 of the way down the page to this heading. It's a
sound file containing a story from yesterday's broadcast.
Outdoors Enthusiasts Question Bush Policies

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:05:02 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.


I believe I indicated a lack of knowledge about, "...voucher system
used by companies which pollute." I've never stated I knew nothing of
the science of pollution or air/water quality. You seem to be
inferring a lot. By disagreeing with the statement that Bush's policy
is to "damage as much as possible" I am not professing a degree of
knowledge.

I believe there is much in our environment which is susceptible to
damage but has not made the list of things Bush wants to damage.
Therefore he is not damaging as much as possible.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:30:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

.....and in the final analysis, pollution credits may not matter, anyway.
Your boy is managing to alienate former supporters every day. Must be his
hobby.

Go here...
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown....ate=1-Mar-2004

...and scroll about 2/3 of the way down the page to this heading. It's a
sound file containing a story from yesterday's broadcast.
Outdoors Enthusiasts Question Bush Policies


My boy? The last time I voted it was for Al Sharpton.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:30:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

.....and in the final analysis, pollution credits may not matter, anyway.
Your boy is managing to alienate former supporters every day. Must be his
hobby.

Go here...
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown....ate=1-Mar-2004

...and scroll about 2/3 of the way down the page to this heading. It's a
sound file containing a story from yesterday's broadcast.
Outdoors Enthusiasts Question Bush Policies


Thanks for the link. It was interesting. I read about this latest in
the paper yesterday, and wasn't thrilled. I'm hoping to hear more on
the issue because I'm not too trustful of the Wash. Post, or NPR for
that matter.

Bush's environmental actions are one of the big negatives I find with
the administration.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"John H" wrote in message
...


I believe there is much in our environment which is susceptible to
damage but has not made the list of things Bush wants to damage.
Therefore he is not damaging as much as possible.

John H

Do the words "Love Canal" ring a bell? You'll be seeing more of those soon
if your leader has his way.

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:30:14 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

.....and in the final analysis, pollution credits may not matter, anyway.
Your boy is managing to alienate former supporters every day. Must be his
hobby.

Go here...
http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown....ate=1-Mar-2004

...and scroll about 2/3 of the way down the page to this heading. It's a
sound file containing a story from yesterday's broadcast.
Outdoors Enthusiasts Question Bush Policies


My boy? The last time I voted it was for Al Sharpton.

John H

John, baiting newsgroup visitors only works on Harry. Try again. :-)