Re: Detailed evidence fails to support man-made climate change

[John Jacobus <crispy_bird@YAHOO.COM>]

Steve, 

As a matter of fact, I am not prejudiced against

politicians from Oklahoma.  I also object to those

from New York and Mass. who are influenced by

political lobbists and special interest groups from

whom they cull favors and votes.  



As another person on the list server pointed out, the

good senators comments may not be what the majority

scientists who are specialists in this field believe.



I do agree that not all environmental laws are useful,

but to throw out all without careful review is bad

legislation.  I do not believe that I can make

judgements like that, but I do not know if the good

senator is a better judge.  Afterall, he may have his

biases.  Unlike me, he can make laws that affect our

environment and pocketbook.  Do you agree?



--- Steven Dapra <sjd@swcp.com> wrote:

> Aug. 4

> 

> 	John Jacobus wrote, "Who should carry more weight

> in the

> debate of global warming:  The National Academy of

> Sciences [citation

> omitted] or a politician from Oklahoma?"

> 

> 	What's the matter, John?  Do you have some bias

> against policicians from

> Oklahoma?  What if Sen. Inhofe were from New York?

> or Washington? or (fill

> in the blank with your favorite state)?  As another

> RADSAFEr very ably

> pointed out, the important thing is the message, not

> the messenger.

> 

> 	You objected to Inhofe for being "a politician from

> a party affiliated

> with an administration that opposed environmental

> laws, that campaigned

> against those environmental laws already in place". 

> Is this 'guilt by

> association'?  Much more to the point, because a law

> is an "environmental

> law" -- in place or not -- does that automatically

> mean it is a <good> law?

>  Why not examine the merits of the law, instead of

> apparently holding the

> belief that an "environmental" law is of necessity a

> good law?

> 

> 	You wrote that you "tend to think he [Inhofe] might

> have an ulterior

> motive rather then the well-being of the country and

> its citizens."  It

> could very well be that different people have

> different ideas about what

> constitutes the well being of the country and its

> citizens.  Not all

> Democrats and not all Republicans (or members of any

> political party) agree

> within their parties on what constitutes the

> well-being of the country.

> 

> 	It probably would not hurt to repeal some of the

> "environmental" laws that

> are presently on the books.  (I can't cite any -- I

> said <probably>.)

> 

> 	On second thought, how about repealing Superfund? 

> All it seems to do is

> line the pockets of lawyers.  RCRA might be another

> good candidate for a

> wooden stake.  

> . . .



=====

-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/