And the Bush lies just keep on coming

"John H" <jherring$$@$$cox**.net> wrote in message
news:gh674058qc7pphnv8l3ndfsg6e522oib1b@4ax.com...

  > >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".

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/8340/credits.html" target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Downs/8340/credits.html</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: And the Bush lies just keep on coming 

On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 14:22:42 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
<ancientangler.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

 >"John H" <jherring$$@$$cox**.net> wrote in message
 >news:gh674058qc7pphnv8l3ndfsg6e522oib1b@4ax.com...
 >
   >> >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/Downs/8340/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!<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: And the Bush lies just keep on coming 

On 2 Mar 2004 12:03:57 -0800, atl_man2.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com (basskisser) wrote:

 >John H <jherring$$@$$cox**.net> 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!<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: And the Bush lies just keep on coming 

basskisser wrote:

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

Reputed?

Good God Almighty.

-- Charlie<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: And the Bush lies just keep on coming 

"basskisser" <atl_man2 DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c74f111.0403021203.38e887f9@posting.google.com...
 > John H <jherring$$@$$cox**.net> 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.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: And the Bush lies just keep on coming 

" Tuuk" <bangkokbob5001.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<Y3Q%b.278$n37.64817@read2.cgocable.net>...
 > LOL
 >
 > Asskisser,, you are the limit,,,
 >
 > Why should I have to argue with you when you put your foot in your mouth on
 > your own. You did this on purpose. Nobody can be this stupid. Are you having
 > fun here now? You trying to make a joke?
 > LoL,, come on there asskisser,,, give the head a shake....

What a stupid putz you are, Tuuk. THAT, for your information, was
written by someone else. I simply cut and pasted it. Yes, I am having
fun, it's quite fun to needle someone as narrow minded as you. Give
your ass a shake, Tuuk.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: And the Bush lies just keep on coming 

"basskisser" <atl_man2.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3c74f111.0403111228.3b99aeef@posting.google.com...
 > " Tuuk" <bangkokbob5001.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<Y3Q%b.278$n37.64817@read2.cgocable.net>...
  > > LOL
  > >
  > > Asskisser,, you are the limit,,,
  > >
  > > Why should I have to argue with you when you put your foot in your mouth
on
  > > your own. You did this on purpose. Nobody can be this stupid. Are you
having
  > > fun here now? You trying to make a joke?
  > > LoL,, come on there asskisser,,, give the head a shake....
 >
 > What a stupid putz you are, Tuuk. THAT, for your information, was
 > written by someone else. I simply cut and pasted it. Yes, I am having
 > fun, it's quite fun to needle someone as narrow minded as you. Give
 > your ass a shake, Tuuk.

Do you find men's asses attractive Basskisser?<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: And the Bush lies just keep on coming 

"Jim--" <notme RemoveThis @notme.com> wrote in message news:<FoidnQyThPIITc3dRVn-ug RemoveThis @comcast.com>...
 > "basskisser" <atl_man2 RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
 > news:3c74f111.0403111228.3b99aeef@posting.google.com...
  > > " Tuuk" <bangkokbob5001 RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
 > news:<Y3Q%b.278$n37.64817@read2.cgocable.net>...
   > > > LOL
   > > >
   > > > Asskisser,, you are the limit,,,
   > > >
   > > > Why should I have to argue with you when you put your foot in your mouth
 > on
   > > > your own. You did this on purpose. Nobody can be this stupid. Are you
 > having
   > > > fun here now? You trying to make a joke?
   > > > LoL,, come on there asskisser,,, give the head a shake....
  > >
  > > What a stupid putz you are, Tuuk. THAT, for your information, was
  > > written by someone else. I simply cut and pasted it. Yes, I am having
  > > fun, it's quite fun to needle someone as narrow minded as you. Give
  > > your ass a shake, Tuuk.
 >
 > Do you find men's asses attractive Basskisser?

I'm sorry you don't understand, Jim--.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: And the Bush lies just keep on coming