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 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

What a silly question! Of course good scientists disagree. Just last week, I
read that there are two vastly different approaches to the true cause of mad
cow disease. The prion theory is one, and the other is....something else-I
don't remember. Neither side is calling the other stupid.

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:11:42 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
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

What a silly question! Of course good scientists disagree. Just last week, I
read that there are two vastly different approaches to the true cause of mad
cow disease. The prion theory is one, and the other is....something else-I
don't remember. Neither side is calling the other stupid.


Oh, I thought they called it PMS because Mad Cow Disease was already
taken. Everything I ever thought I knew anything about is getting
totally shaken up in this one thread.

If you're right, that good scientists disagree, then b'asskisser must
be wrong. Since b'asskisser is never wrong, something's wrong.

John H

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

"John H" wrote in message
...

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

What a silly question! Of course good scientists disagree. Just last
week, I
read that there are two vastly different approaches to the true cause of
mad
cow disease. The prion theory is one, and the other is....something
else-I
don't remember. Neither side is calling the other stupid.


Oh, I thought they called it PMS because Mad Cow Disease was already
taken. Everything I ever thought I knew anything about is getting
totally shaken up in this one thread.

If you're right, that good scientists disagree, then b'asskisser must
be wrong. Since b'asskisser is never wrong, something's wrong.

It's a mystery! We need a Vulcan to solve this one.

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 21:43:38 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .

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

What a silly question! Of course good scientists disagree. Just last
week, I
read that there are two vastly different approaches to the true cause of
mad
cow disease. The prion theory is one, and the other is....something
else-I
don't remember. Neither side is calling the other stupid.


Oh, I thought they called it PMS because Mad Cow Disease was already
taken. Everything I ever thought I knew anything about is getting
totally shaken up in this one thread.

If you're right, that good scientists disagree, then b'asskisser must
be wrong. Since b'asskisser is never wrong, something's wrong.

It's a mystery! We need a Vulcan to solve this one.

I finished my income taxes, electronically filed them, and now I've
got to fix dinner. The wife will be home from work soon, and I can't
show her all this stuff as a reason for not cooking!

Have a good day!

John H

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