Science does not become political. Scientists do. When a scientist puts political ambition/funding protection before valid science then they become a politician.
>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 Because the methods used are suspect and the evidence ambiguous at best. >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? Only if the science was valid and results and evidence unambiguous. On the same vein, evolution by natural selection or catastrophe are still considered theories because the results and evidence is still ambiguous. AAAS is putting forth ambiguous evidence and claiming it is unambiguous evidence of causality all in the name of politics. As I said before, global climate change exists. Causality evidence is what is suspect. It seems to me that the AAAS, like the AGU is not allowing dissenting views to be published in thier journals. That is a political act. > >On 2/20/07, Russel Madere <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 Experience Flex 2 & MX7 integration & create powerful cross-platform RIAs http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion/flex2/ Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:228404 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5
