This human component introduces a level of imperfection which prevents any data from being one hundred percent unequivocal. Scientists are still arguing about many of the so-called facts in the scientific community. Our individual differences lead to the noncongruency of collected data. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, yes, theoretically, data and accepted facts should be neutral, and for the most part, I believe them to be so. However, I am also very aware of the effect that a person's religious, philisophical, personal, and cultural beliefs can have on their interpretation of the data.
Environmental knowledge is no exception.
We can send two groups of researchers into the field to conduct the same study, and their data may return identical, but the interpretations of the findings may be exact opposites. It is how we define the world around us. It is how we create truths for ourselves, and how we make sense of the natural world as it pertains to us. From an early age, we develop the skills to discriminate, and the ability to make order in our own minds out of the chaos which surrounds us. This process leads us to form the opinions we hold about the outside world.