"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.

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!

"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.

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!

"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.