"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


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

Here comes the age-old question: Who *would* you trust for more information
on this particular segment of voters? How about your local chapter of Trout
Unlimited? You've got a pretty active bunch of people in your area, if the
book "Fly Fishing Through the Midlife Crisis" is any indication.

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 17:26:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.

Truman was a Democrat.

John H

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

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 17:26:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"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. :-)

What do you mean, baiting? I *did* vote for Al!

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 17:26:04 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.

Truman was a Democrat.

John H

I knew you were gonna say that. :-) I mentioned Love Canal as an example of
what happens when industry has no constraints, not as a suggestion that the
president at the time was connected with it. We had an "almost" occur here
in Rochester last year, and a couple of "definites" in the past 20 years,
and the perps are claiming it's not their job to clean up the messes they
made. Matter of fact, General Electric is still bitching about paying for
cleanup efforts in the Hudson River. They've admitted to dumping toxins, but
they don't think they should be held accountable. WTF?

As far as politicians, we have a Republican governor who I will vote for as
many times as he runs because his environmental record is excellent. He
sometimes wears white socks with dark suits, but I can overlook that.

"John H" wrote in message
...

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

John H

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

What do you mean, baiting? I *did* vote for Al!

John H

Yeah. Right.

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.

John H

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

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
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.

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 17:45:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .

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

John H

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

What do you mean, baiting? I *did* vote for Al!

John H

Yeah. Right.

Honest!
John H

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

On 2 Mar 2004 12:03:57 -0800, (basskisser) 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?

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

John H

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

Bear with me, b'asskisser, I'm a little slow. Are you suggesting that
anyone who calls himself a 'scientist' uses only 'good' science?
Wouldn't that mean that scientists could never disagree?

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 17:45:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .

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

John H

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

What do you mean, baiting? I *did* vote for Al!

John H

Yeah. Right.

Honest!

Why??? The has no attractive qualities. Were you unimpressed with the other
choices?