When does good, sound scientific evidence become "politicized"? When it no longer agrees with our specific world view? Why is the research and the conclusions on Global Warming by AAAS suddenly political? If they had concluded that humans are not contributing to global warming, or their contribution is measurably insignificant...would their motivation still be politics? Or would that finally be good science?
On 2/20/07, Russel Madere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No, not commies, for the most part. But now they are > politicians. Everything I'll read from them now, including peer reviewed > articles, will be suspect. Remember, politicians lie. You can tell when > they do, thier lips, or now, pens move. > > I had probelms with the AGU (American Geophysics Union) politicizing Yucca > Mountain. It caused 3 of my articles to fail thier peer review because I > provided a geologic interpretation that supported the project. I ended up > presenting the same articles to the GSA and they passed review with just > grammatical revision. > > > Of course there are those on this mailing list who will claim that the > > American Association for the Advancement of Science is just a commie > > front organization. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Macromedia ColdFusion MX7 Upgrade to MX7 & experience time-saving features, more productivity. http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:228401 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
