Ben,
I'm not sure where you are going with this. I hope you are speaking generally and this is not an "ad hominem" reference to me.

It is your forum, but you have set up this China Shop as a place to debate ideas, haven't you? I certainly won't refrain from debate, here, in the China Shop. I will, however, try to keep away from specific political parties and positions, and from peoples' religions.

Do I disagree with the anti-chlorine crowd? Obviously! I don't think that can be reasonably questioned. Do I LIKE the idea that a coalition frequently must tolerate people who blather on about irrational idiocy? No. But that IS the nature of coalitions, like it or not.

But as I have TRIED to make clear, sometimes you have to tolerate the positions that you don't like to achieve something you value more. Cost-benefit analysis. Hold your nose.

You yourself pointed out the "Green" article that their facts were essentially correct--but they mis-used them and applied them to non-appropriate situations. That doesn't necessarily make them liars. Or it does, and then EVERY political party is nothing but liars, bending and selecting facts to fit their position

Now we need to isolate two very different concepts:
1) Science
2) Law

In science, facts and analysis are critical. You should, in fact, MUST consider all known facts. You may not engage in "reductionism"--the ignoring of inconvenient facts. To do so is unethical. This is true of the social sciences as well as the hard sciences.

In Law, all the rules are different. A criminal defense attorney's job is NOT to find the truth, but to provide the best defense for the client. To do less is unethical. For the defense attorney to seek evidence that will convict the client may be a pursuit of the truth, but then the accused has NOBODY to rely on--and this violates the presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty.

The prosecution's job is SUPPOSED to be to seek the truth, but in fact, is to get convictions. The prosecutor is supposed to provide ALL evidence to the defense, exculpatory as well as incriminating. Many do not--I believe this to be unethical.

In civil court, both the plaintiff and the defense attorneys are bound to put forth the strongest case for their client and have NO obligation to present contradictory evidence--in fact, to do otherwise is unethical.

But politics is a merger of these two. While actually advocating for very particular positions, politicians like to posture that they are being scientific. They ALL quote some science to support them, whether it's Al Gore on the environment, or George Bush on global warming. The positions are different, the tactics are the same. Both claim the truth. Each of us must decide whom we think is being more truthful. We are stuck with it.

This happens all the time in the politics of our towns, our states, and our nation. Everybody must make the choice, every time they vote: Do I compromise, vote for the lesser of two evils, or if I'm lucky, vote for someone/something that approximately will follow some policies I approve of? Or do I "stand on principle" and basically throw my vote away? What do YOU do? (that's rhetorical, not for answering).

I can tell you that I have thrown my vote away, only to see the WORSE of two evils come to power and really make a mess.

Say there are two parties, the Clap-Trap party and the Hum-Drum party. Say you are generally sympathetic to the Hum-Drum positions, but they nominate a candidate that you really don't like. Meanwhile the Clap-Traps have nominated a candidate you detest. You can hold your nose and try to get the Hum-Drum elected to keep the Clap-Trap out, or you can toss your vote away and let the Clap-Trap come in and REALLY make a mess. This is NOT a reference to either actual party or the current situation--it can be any town, state or national election over the last 200 years.

Do I LIKE the fact that liars win elections more often than truth tellers--at EVERY level? No. Why should I? But after 51 years on this earth I have come to see that the best person for the job has NOTHING to do with how he/she is perceived by the voters.

One of the reasons my wife and I decided NEVER to live in a home-owners' association home ever again was in our one experience, we watched people lie like dogs on a rug to get into officerships, solely for their own personal benefit. They touted experience, legal knowledge, etc. but once in office many were willing to damage the community's interest solely for their own personal benefit.

So: Am I willing to trash the entire environmentalist movement because they are willing to tolerate crackpots who think chlorine is some plot to poison them? (shades of the mad general in Dr. Strangelove) Will we be better off if we do so? That is the question we each need to ask.

Carl.