"Brien K. Meehan" wrote in message
oups.com...
If you believe that, you're a bigger fool than me.

The way these things REALLY work is to provide the politicians involved
the appearance of taking corrective action without actually having to
do anything.

The most politically useful conclusion for the sponsors would be that
the study indicates that GA is not a significant threat, and/or that
the cost of mitigating the threat is prohibitive. That way, the
sponsors can say they support whatever legislation they invent (and
gain the approval of their supporters), but not lose the support of
their opponents by being able to implement any changes.

Plus, if anything goes wrong, they can blame it on the scientists or
bean-counters. Especially the ones in the other party.

Political shenanigans aside, the study would have to deal with the
truth to some extent. There would be too many eyes watching to get too
unscientific. Any truth at all that comes out of the study would be
pro-GA.


Dream on. Betcha McCain jumps on this band wagon before too long.