Environmental Science is not a Science. It is a study and a way of being.
Biology is a Pseudo science as well.

It is treated as a science in schools and the Universities, but those of us
that are Scientists know that many of the near and pseudo sciences are not.
They try to be on the higher plain but never really fit just right.

Those with agendas tend to tag their results or methods with great names.

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Hawke wrote:
"Climate assessment forced by court order"
[
By Timothy Gardner

NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Bush administration released a climate change
assessment on Thursday -- four years late and pushed forward by a court
order --
that said human-induced global warming will likely lead to problems like
droughts in the U.S. West and stronger hurricanes.

President George W. Bush's stance on the issue has evolved from denying
climate
science to acknowledging that global warming is happening. In March,
watchdog
groups said Bush's decision to intervene in setting air pollution
standards was
part of a pattern of meddling in environmental science.
....
In 2006, the Bush government was accused of censoring its scientists on
global
warming, such as NASA expert James Hansen, ...
]
More

And probably packed with the usual winger-lies & anti-science stuff... is
there a signing statement?
--
Cliff

Environmental Science is an Agenda, It deserves to be meddled with.

I'm afraid that you have it backwards. Environmental science is a legitimate
and widely accepted area of science, at least it is to the scientific world.
Global warming deniers are the ones who have an agenda. Always look to who
benefits. Who benefits if there is no such thing as man made global warming?
Why, the people in the business that produce all the carbon emissions. Just
like big Tobacco didn't want to admit to causing cancer businesses that
pollute don't want to admit it does any harm. If only there was a way to
make the deniers of global warming appear to be liberals the right wingers
would all be saying global warming is a scientific fact.

Hawke




----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:16:57 -0500, "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote:

Environmental Science is not a Science. It is a study and a way of being.
Biology is a Pseudo science as well.

It is treated as a science in schools and the Universities, but those of us
that are Scientists know that many of the near and pseudo sciences are not.
They try to be on the higher plain but never really fit just right.

Those with agendas tend to tag their results or methods with great names.


Why stop with biology? Lacking a Theory of Everything or Grand Unified
Theory, we might as well stop kidding ourselves and admit that physics
is also a pseudo-science.

--
Ned Simmons

No, lacking a full sized theory of everything doesn't kill physics.
It is work.

In fact, behind me, is a book I prize that details of String Theory
and M-Theory. The formula is now confined in combining these two
almost complete but overlapping theories. Once they are resolved, then
a few will have that.

But theories come up all of the time. As ideas are proved. The word
is proved, not felt like or thought to be or seems like and feels like.....

Pure science contains facts not feelings.

Martin

Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Ned Simmons wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:16:57 -0500, "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote:

Environmental Science is not a Science. It is a study and a way of being.
Biology is a Pseudo science as well.

It is treated as a science in schools and the Universities, but those of us
that are Scientists know that many of the near and pseudo sciences are not.
They try to be on the higher plain but never really fit just right.

Those with agendas tend to tag their results or methods with great names.


Why stop with biology? Lacking a Theory of Everything or Grand Unified
Theory, we might as well stop kidding ourselves and admit that physics
is also a pseudo-science.



----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:12:27 -0500, "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote:

No, lacking a full sized theory of everything doesn't kill physics.
It is work.

In fact, behind me, is a book I prize that details of String Theory
and M-Theory. The formula is now confined in combining these two
almost complete but overlapping theories. Once they are resolved, then
a few will have that.

But theories come up all of the time. As ideas are proved. The word
is proved, not felt like or thought to be or seems like and feels like.....

Pure science contains facts not feelings.


So let me paraphrase what I think you're saying; when the uncertainty
in a given field is reduced to a sufficient degree, it becomes a
legitimate science? What's the standard for when that point is
reached?


Ned Simmons wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:16:57 -0500, "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote:

Environmental Science is not a Science. It is a study and a way of being.
Biology is a Pseudo science as well.

It is treated as a science in schools and the Universities, but those of us
that are Scientists know that many of the near and pseudo sciences are not.
They try to be on the higher plain but never really fit just right.

Those with agendas tend to tag their results or methods with great names.


Why stop with biology? Lacking a Theory of Everything or Grand Unified
Theory, we might as well stop kidding ourselves and admit that physics
is also a pseudo-science.



----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

--
Ned Simmons

I can give you law after law in Physics.
Can you give me a law that is in Biology ? I can't think of any.
Chemistry - yes
etc.

The fact that boundaries are pushed and developed from time to time
doesn't kill a science.

Biology and others are theories for the most part.

Physics is the pure science - from it branches others including Mathematics.
Much of mathematics was developed to understand and work with physics.

I didn't say if I 'invent' a known law out of chaos makes a science.
It is a massive amount. A law is just that. It happens.

Martin
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
TSRA, Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member.
http://lufkinced.com/


Ned Simmons wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 21:12:27 -0500, "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote:

No, lacking a full sized theory of everything doesn't kill physics.
It is work.

In fact, behind me, is a book I prize that details of String Theory
and M-Theory. The formula is now confined in combining these two
almost complete but overlapping theories. Once they are resolved, then
a few will have that.

But theories come up all of the time. As ideas are proved. The word
is proved, not felt like or thought to be or seems like and feels like.....

Pure science contains facts not feelings.


So let me paraphrase what I think you're saying; when the uncertainty
in a given field is reduced to a sufficient degree, it becomes a
legitimate science? What's the standard for when that point is
reached?

Ned Simmons wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jun 2008 21:16:57 -0500, "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote:

Environmental Science is not a Science. It is a study and a way of being.
Biology is a Pseudo science as well.

It is treated as a science in schools and the Universities, but those of us
that are Scientists know that many of the near and pseudo sciences are not.
They try to be on the higher plain but never really fit just right.

Those with agendas tend to tag their results or methods with great names.

Why stop with biology? Lacking a Theory of Everything or Grand Unified
Theory, we might as well stop kidding ourselves and admit that physics
is also a pseudo-science.


----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---



----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---