So, if it agrees with your prejudices it's good science, and if it doesn't it's a bad, bad, politically motivated study.

Stalin did the same thing with genetics, and the Red Chinese attempted it, too. Started with a prejudice, and then judged the studies of their scientists based upon what they wanted to hear.

Kinda like your sneer. You think oil production is GOOD for the environment? Well, come to think of it, your ilk might.

It's entirely possible to decide it might be best to drill for oil. What is the problem with also recognizing that the drilling and production of oil would be bad for the environment and the living creatures which use that environment? It's called accountability.

Well, it wouldn't be THAT bad, you say. Just a little bad. And not even "bad", there would just be those evidences of "civilization" that Nature needs to adjust to, anyway. And when we're done Nature can have it back. Nature is very flexible.

You need to tell the people doing these studies what you would like to hear so they can adjust to you. As I mentioned to someone else, if you expect them to be mindreaders, you have to offer 'em something on which to work.

Arf