Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
And the Bush lies just keep on coming
"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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
And the Bush lies just keep on coming
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! |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
And the Bush lies just keep on coming
"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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
And the Bush lies just keep on coming
......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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
And the Bush lies just keep on coming
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! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
And the Bush lies just keep on coming
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! |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
And the Bush lies just keep on coming
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! |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
And the Bush lies just keep on coming
"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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
And the Bush lies just keep on coming
"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. :-) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|