“Bush’s assault on science and the environment is his second-worst war,” columnist Derrick Jackson wrote, noting how President George W. Bush, in his waning weeks, has freed federal agencies from consulting with government scientists to evaluate the environmental impact of projects and eliminated the 100-foot buffer zone protecting rivers and streams from coal-mining waste. “What could possibly be left of the environment for the Bush administration to degrade on its way out the door?” Jackson asked. It wants to let developers pave forest roads in order to develop residential subdivisions.
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- okobserver on Let immigrants run
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Late-night laughs
58 Comments
“Bush can’t see the forest or the trees”
No kidding. Where he keeps his head, it’s always dark.
There is not much anything in this world uglier than a McMansion carved into the side of a mountain.
Just so some dork can get his jollies looking down on everyone else.
The Congress has the power to reverse every single thing the bush administration is doing in its first 90 days. The beauty is whose idea that was.
Thank you Newt Gingrich!
Congress needs to get busy reversing this latest and all of the rest of bush’s decisions. HIS only legacy should be that he was the worst President ever.
Why Mr. Brownlee, I’m shocked at your skepticism.
What other President from 2000-2008 has signed the bills necessary for scientists like Dr. Hansen to get a paycheck from the government?
Besides, this is nothing more than an assault on Plum Creek Timber, the largest owner of private timber land in the U.S. Yes, I said private timber land. Environmental terrorists litigators such as Sierra Club have been filing law suits for years to prevent Plum Creek from developing their own land.
I would think a newspaper like the Wichita Eagle would have a vested interest in Plum Creek as one of the companies that provide paper for their presses.
Plum Creek also manages and replants more than 2 million trees a year to replenish cut lands. :)
“Besides, this is nothing more than an assault on Plum Creek Timber, the largest owner of private timber land in the U.S. Yes, I said private timber land.”
Let’s think on that one for a minute.
Some money grubbing company wants to exercise their right to own trees. Oh and the land those trees rise over. SO they can develop the land and sell houses to rich people who want to live among the trees.
Trees and land should not belong to anyone.
I hear QuikTrip is going to sell off that station they have at the corner of Central and Oliver. I think I’ll buy it, and then build a nice big chemical plant right there on the corner – something that emits tons of smelly, eye-burning fumes. It will be particularly unpleasant for anyone living within, say, half a mile or mile of there, but only on hot summer days when the wind is blowing from the south.
After all, it’ll be MY land, and I should be able to develop it how I want, WITHOUT any pesky government oversight or regulation.
But wait, you say – the government has laws against that! Repeal’em. Who cares about that street corner? Who cares about the people who live in that neighborhood? It’s my land. MINE MINE MINE.
Mmmmmm, it’ll be the smell of unrestricted, unregulated, “free market” capitalism.
“Trees and land should not belong to anyone.”
Kumbaya, my brotha, kumbaya.
What other President from 2000-2008 has signed the bills necessary for scientists like Dr. Hansen to get a paycheck from the government?
Regular I am sure as a Conservative you are outraged at this! Good tax payer money being spent to pay scientists. Only to ignore what they are paid to concluded or even stop them for doing their jobs that they are paid to do! You would not go to see a specialist paying a specialist’s premium and disregard what they say would you…. No that would be a waste of money and foolish to do no matter what they concluded if you agree with it or not.
I know I am outraged, what are they thinking of by wasting my money to pay these scientists and not letting them do their jobs and/or ignoring them!
I fear, Mr. Witt, that the Quick Trips no matter the location are potential environmental polluters with the storage of gasoline and the constant accumulation of automobiles that refuel there.
It is interesting that you are keen on land development. Perhaps you can do something about that very ugly building located at Woodlawn and Central. That place is a real eyesore and causes run off rain water misery to many of its neighbors. :)
‘Dog,
It’s the new “conservative” methodology: Claim government doesn’t work, and once they get control of it, fulfill that expectation.
Good job, so-called “conservatives!” Bravo!
“Claim government doesn’t work, and once they get control of it, fulfill that expectation.”
P.J. O’Rourke
Take a look at that picture up there. Click on it to make it a little bigger.
Now, bush sees that picture and thinks to the left of a subdivision and to the right a strip mall.
I see a place to spend an afternoon appreciating nature.
Regular,
I’ve moved my office out of that very ugly building at Central and Woodlawn, so I’m ahead of ya there.
I think you hit the key to the subject, quite unwittingly, when you said “potential environmental polluters.” It’s POTENTIAL because gas stations are highly regulated for physical and environmental safety. You know, by our government. Imagine that. :)
#
writerdog
Posted January 10, 2009 at 8:38 am | Permalink
What other President from 2000-2008 has signed the bills necessary for scientists like Dr. Hansen to get a paycheck from the government?
Regular I am sure as a Conservative you are outraged at this! Good tax payer money being spent to pay scientists. Only to ignore what they are paid to concluded or even stop them for doing their jobs that they are paid to do! You would not go to see a specialist paying a specialist’s premium and disregard what they say would you…. No that would be a waste of money and foolish to do no matter what they concluded if you agree with it or not.
I know I am outraged, what are they thinking of by wasting my money to pay these scientists and not letting them do their jobs and/or ignoring them!
====================
I’m very interested in science. I must point out that scientists are scientists and not policy makers. There is much more to consider than raw science when making decisions.
If certain scientists had their way, Mr. Writerdog, you would be paying $8.00/gallon for gas with 75 percent of the proceeds being for taxes. You wouldn’t be able to run your gasoline powered lawnmower and you would get fined daily if your home didn’t fit escaping heat profiles during the winter or running your air conditioner excessively in the summer.
Be glad, be very glad that environmental activist scientists don’t set policies. :)
#
thomaswitt
Posted January 10, 2009 at 8:43 am | Permalink
Regular,
I’ve moved my office out of that very ugly building at Central and Woodlawn, so I’m ahead of ya there.
I think you hit the key to the subject, quite unwittingly, when you said “potential environmental polluters.” It’s POTENTIAL because gas stations are highly regulated for physical and environmental safety. You know, by our government. Imagine that. :)
—————————
Yes, Mr. Witt, back in the day as a Safety Consultant, I worked quite close with OSHA and the various EPA’s for environmental monitoring and regulation. :)
Regular brags, “as a Safety Consultant, I worked quite close with OSHA and the various EPA’s for environmental monitoring and regulation”
SINNER!!!! HEATHEN!!! YOU ARE A REPUBLICAN IN NAME ONLY!!! SOCIALIST TRAITOR TO AMERICA!!!
Whew. That was cathartic.
My dad gave me some sound advise, “your right end and everyone else’s rights begin at the tip of your nose”. A person or a company has the right to do what so ever they want with their property as long as it does not go pass the tip of their nose. The timber company has a right as long as they have legally acquired the land and trees to do what they want with it. AS LONG AS, it does not effect beyond the legally owned property. If the development would cause erosion and result in wash-off that would effect the land other then what they own. If the act of development would result in the lack of breathable air then it becomes the duty of the Government and the right of everyone out side of the tip of those noses to act to stop them.
Is this supposed to be a shocking revelation?? I think not.
Fleett,
I went digging for the actual O’Rourke quote:
“The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn’t work and then they get elected and prove it.”
I’m not sure if he’s the first person to say this, or something similar, but he certainly got both parts of it right.
Thomas Frank says it too. It’s common knowlege. And proven to be true with every wingnut move.
#
BlueJay
Posted January 10, 2009 at 8:34 am | Permalink
Trees and land should not belong to anyone.
__________________________________________________
BlueJay,
Should a home owner own the land (and trees) that their house sits on?
Within limits that do not affect their neighbors or the environment in any lingering way.
Go for it Bush you are doing the right thing.
Regular I agree it is not the scientists job to set policy it is their job to give actuate and conclusive scientist judgment to those who’s job it is to set fair and just policy. Once those scientists have done the job they are being paid to do. It then becomes the job of those setting policy to set policy that is in the best interests of those that have elected them. Both jobs, that of scientist paid by the Government and that of policy maker have a duty to do the best they can in a sounded manner. Not one of a temporary monetary gain that ends up a long term cost to fix.
The Policy makers has a tuff job, to avoid making a policy that may mean a short term gain but it is foreseeable that it will end in a long term cost to the public. Or that a policy means a selective gain to a very few while it is the greater public that suffers for the select gain of a very few.
In order to aid them in making those policies, they pay for scientists and other experts in the subjects to advise them. No one will know everything in just one life time so we have to depend on those whom are learned and have studied on a subject to advise us.
If you pay someone to advise you it is because you want the best advice. I have to continue to work on my vehicles to keep them going. I am lousy at it, I never seem to be able to do it right. I have a bad temper and throw wrenches and tools at the car. Now I am willing to either work on your car for $30,00 an hour or for $30, 00 flat give you my best advise and tell you to take your car to a certified mechanic. Which course would you rather choose to have?
In Bush’s favor…I’ll have to admit he did one right thing last week:
“A century after Teddy Roosevelt started preserving landmarks and landscapes as national monuments, President Bush has swept nearly 200,000 square miles of seascapes into three new national marine monuments around US Pacific territories.
The much-anticipated action this week follows a similar move two years ago along the northwest Hawaiian islands. Taken together, the two efforts extend tough environmental safeguards to 355,000 square miles of islands, reefs, atolls, and their surrounding waters. Those included in the latest announcement represent some of the most remote, pristine reef systems in the world.
The response from several environmental groups, long critical of the administration on a range of other issues, has been swift and effusive.
“The president has given the Earth a Texas-size gift,” says Diane Regas, who heads the oceans program for the Environmental Defense Fund in New York. Tuesday’s action “opens a new era in ocean protection.”
Others say they see the move as elevating marine conservation to a level of prominence long dominated by efforts to preserve land-based ecosystems.
The areas receiving the monument designation include:
• Rose Atoll, a ring of pink-hued coral near American Samoa.
• The Marianas Marine National Monument, which encompasses the three northernmost islands in the northern Marianas chain, as well as the entire length and breadth of the Mariana Trench – the deepest rift of any on the ocean floor.
• The Pacific Remote Islands National Monument, an array of seven remote islands and atolls in the central Pacific.
The designations prohibit commercial fishing within monument boundaries. Sport fishing, scientific research, and similar activities would require case-by-case permits showing, among other things, that the activities can be conducted sustainably.
The boundaries extend seaward to 50 miles, rather than the full 200 miles representing the country’s exclusive economic zone. Marine scientists specializing in corals, fish, and seabirds strongly favored extending protections beyond three miles. But there was far less agreement on the added value of extending protections beyond 50 miles, says James Connaughton, chairman of the President’s Council on Environmental Quality.
It’s similar to the boundaries around the northwest Hawaiian islands, now known as the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. The line could shift as researchers learn more about the ecosystems involved, Mr. Connaughton suggests.
Another apparent oddity: Protections for the Mariana Trench extend only to the trench itself, not the waters above it. Connaughton notes that scientists were most interested in the geology of the trench and its surroundings, including undersea volcanoes and hydrothermal vents, and the communities of unusual forms of life they support. The waters above the trench “weren’t relevant to the resources we wanted to protect,” he says.
The tight restrictions on sport fishing rankle some. “There is no scientific basis for prohibiting recreational angling in these areas,” says Mat Dunn of the National Marine Manufacturers Association in Washington, though he acknowledges that these ecosystems may be special.
Despite the enthusiastic response to Mr. Bush’s designations, analysts point to several challenges in managing the new monuments – a task that will fall to the Obama administration. Among them: interagency squabbles and the money needed to monitor activities in the remote monuments and enforce regulations.
Still, these don’t dampen the enthusiasm for Bush’s designations. “We see this as an outstanding act of presidential leadership,” says William Chandler of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute in Bellevue, Wash.”
Blue jay, you are a nut I am SO entertained by your posts. Do you get paid to write these?
writerdog
Posted January 10, 2009 at 9:26 am | Permalink
Regular I agree it is not the scientists job to set policy it is their job to give actuate and conclusive scientist judgment to those who’s job it is to set fair and just policy. Once those scientists have done the job they are being paid to do. It then becomes the job of those setting policy to set policy that is in the best interests of those that have elected them. Both jobs, that of scientist paid by the Government and that of policy maker have a duty to do the best they can in a sounded manner. Not one of a temporary monetary gain that ends up a long term cost to fix.
————–
Well said, writerdog.
As for AGW, the climate scientists have done their scientific job, and the policy makers have been trying to set the best policies.
Unfortunately, misinformation from fossil-energy and right-wing/free-market groups since the 1980’s has been blocking the progress of the policy makers.
Plus there are misinformed AGW denying citizens, who hate carbon taxes and Al Gore more than they care about what happens to humans in the future.
From link in header:
“In a further attack on the Endangered Species Act, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne proudly announced he would protect polar bears, but decoupled the protection from the problem – the greenhouse gas melting of arctic ice. In perfect Bushspeak, Kempthorne said, “We do not believe the science is there to make the causal link.” ”
————–
Yep, a political science degree from the University of Idaho makes Kempthorne the world’s most qualified polar bear AND climate scientist. /sarcasm OFF
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirk_Kempthorne
“Ks Conservative” I am the future. Get uncomfortable with it.
I do believe that we could face far more significant problems if we were to be facing global cooling, than global warming…
I seem to remember that those who supported global cooling some time back, ALSO said it was being brought on by human-caused comsumption practices….
We were told to stop using aerosols, and styrofoam cups at meetings, and we had this huge scare about the growth of the gigantic hole in the ozone layer….
My goodness — all kinds of things that WE were supposed to be doing, that was going to bring on the next, sure to come, ICE AGE…..
Bottom line…. That movement, too, was based on the basic idea that all of humanity had the responsibility to be good stewards of the gift of the Planet(or Mother Earth, or Gaia, or whatever any group called it)
There was at least one fictional book written about the dangers of the coming ICE AGE —
It was called ” Creed for the Third Millenium” by Colleen McCullogh… author of “The Thornbirds”…. It’s a pretty good read….
I think that whatever is happening… warming… cooling…. ALL of humanity needs to work at being good stewards of our Earth… and stopping unnecessary pollutions, etc., when we can stop them…
If for that reason, and nothing more, the Kyoto Treaty is worthwhile…. which ever side of the warming/cooling issue we may choose to take…. It is all about being responsible for the world around us…
If we choose to not think about those to come after us, those to come after us will never forget what we have done…
If for that reason, and nothing more, the Kyoto Treaty is worthwhile…. which ever side of the warming/cooling issue we may choose to take…. It is all about being responsible for the world around us…
Responsibility goes hand in hand in accordance to ones needs.
A starving nation that needs agriculture doesn’t need harsh carbon taxes when it is trying to get its food supply enlarged.
WHICH “very ugly building” at Central & Woodlawn? I drive that intersection often and am not sure what you’re talking about.
A Creed for the Third Milleium
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3885863
And Chas can’t see God because Darwin is in the way.
Chas,
The Ice Age issue in the 1970’s was journalist hype.
Humans have been adding both GHG’s (warming) and aerosols (cooling) to the atmosphere. Around 1977, warming was recognized as the future risk.
A timeline covering the major points.
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm
Also, aerosols are sulfates and similar, from coal-fired power plants and other sources.
Spray can aerosols was re ozone damage.
“Because we don’t think about future generations, they will never forget us.” Henrik Tikkanen
Regular posted January 10, 2009 at 11:38 am
A starving nation that needs agriculture doesn’t need harsh carbon taxes when it is trying to get its food supply enlarged.
——————
The above message was brought to you by an irrational, carbon-tax hating AGW denier.
‘Croplands May Wither as Global Warming Worsens‘
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=croplands-may-wither-as-global-warming-worsens
Cosmos, I remember being advised by my denominational leaders during the ozone “crisis” to discontinue using styrofoam cups/plates, and plastic “silverware” to help stop the ozone depletion prediction…. Much the same as now with the encouragement to hold back on GHG and other AGW pollutants in the atmosphere…
My point upthread is that regardless of which side people are on, cooling or warming, there are calls for PEOPLE to do what can be done to be responsible stewards of our planet….
I think if we work on the responsibility issue, many of the political arguments might disappear… Ya think??
Regular posted January 10, 2009 at 11:38 am
A starving nation that needs agriculture doesn’t need harsh carbon taxes when it is trying to get its food supply enlarged.
===========================================
That might be true… but what does it have to do with the Kyoto Treaty??
Sciam is now just another science censor.Perhaps because the critics are not socialists.
http://www.cgfi.org/2007/02/14/bjorn-lomborg-responds-to-scientific-american-critics/
I find it ironic that some AWG fanatics are concerned about starvation at the same promoting the use of ethanol which has led to current starvation.
More prof their agenda is political and contradiction is their standard mode of operation.
“I think if we work on the responsibility issue, many of the political arguments might disappear… Ya think??”
It’s the scientific arguments they won’t engage in.
There are numerous items from which to make ethanol that do not reduce FOOD crops… and also work well in ethanol plants… Please do some more research into that donnie!!
IF hemp were legalized for ethanol production, it would make one heck of a substitute for using corn…. Thats merely one example…. Others are now starting to use refuse for making ethanol…
Look at Brazil, where ethanol production is HIGH… and all vehicles are using the “flex fuel” system….
Chas posted January 10, 2009 at 12:10 pm
I think if we work on the responsibility issue, many of the political arguments might disappear… Ya think??
————
It’d be great if that would happen, but there some who consider their extreme political viewpoints more important than what happens to humans in the future.
In the recent past, people worldwide did work together to reduce CFC’s etc, that were damaging the ozone layer.
‘Historical Warnings of Future Food Insecurity with Unprecedented Seasonal Heat‘
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/323/5911/240
Cellulosic Ethanol Production >>>>
http://www.harvestcleanenergy.org/enews/enews_0505/enews_0505_Cellulosic_Ethanol.htm
Cosmos says >>>>
“It’d be great if that would happen, but there some who consider their extreme political viewpoints more important than what happens to humans in the future.
In the recent past, people worldwide did work together to reduce CFC’s etc, that were damaging the ozone layer.”
I say a big AMEN to that, Cosmos!! :-)
‘Something Is Rotten in the State of Denmark‘
http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2001/12/12/of/
“If a man walk in the woods for love of them half of each day, he is in danger of being regarded as a loafer; but if he spends his whole day as a speculator, shearing off those woods and making earth bald before her time, he is esteemed an industrious and enterprising citizen.”
-Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)
#
cosmos_originally
Posted January 10, 2009 at 12:24 pm | Permalink
‘Historical Warnings of Future Food Insecurity with Unprecedented Seasonal Heat‘
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/323/5911/240
_____________________________________
“We used observational data and output from 23 global climate models to show a high probability (>90%) that growing season temperatures in the tropics and subtropics by the end of the 21st century will exceed the most extreme seasonal temperatures recorded from 1900 to 2006.”
Again cosMo proves that most of his science is based upon the prophecy from the “global climate models”.
GIGO(garbage in garbage out)
I am royally confused, I had just read a few articles last week that claim Bush might be remembered as an Environmental President years down the road. Now there is this article claiming the exact opposite. Can someone put this in perspective for me with an unbiased analyzation.
“Bush might be remembered as an Environmental President…
Perhaps by someone with advanced Alzheimer’s.
See Mary’s post post above for why the newspapers were saying kind things about bush and his environmental stance last week.
Mary_Caruso
Posted January 10, 2009 at 9:33 am | Permalink
Hey cosMo I can do tit for tat. That’s why it’s not “settle”.
Algore’s frequent comparison of global warming skeptics to people who “believe the moon landing was staged” was delivered a major blow when Moonwalker NASA Astronaut/Geologist Jack Schmitt who flew on the Apollo 17 mission declared he was a skeptic.
“The global warming scare is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making. It has no place in the Society’s activities,”
ttp://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/11/former_nac_chai.html
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/11/20/jack-schmitt-on-computer-models-vs-the-real-world/
“I am royally confused, I had just read a few articles last week that claim Bush might be remembered as an Environmental President years down the road.”
Bush is definitely a ocean president (as much as you can be ignoring the link between increased C02 production and ocean acidification). I do have to give him credit for NWHI and Mariana…he’s no friend of fishermen, that’s for sure!
With his act we can hold off on the damage to some of our more pristine reefs for a little bit longer.
donndublin posted January 10, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Hey cosMo I can do tit for tat. That’s why it’s not “settle”.
———————-
donndublin, I’m sorry that you lack the intelligence needed to understand the obvious difference between:
1) An unsupported opinion from someone.
versus
2) A solid scientific theory that is based on many decades of intense research, data collection, testing, etc, done by highly qualified scientists worldwide.
donndublin posted January 10, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Again cosMo proves that most of his science is based upon the prophecy from the “global climate models”
—————
Ohh noooo!!! God has been trapped in our computer models, since we used them long ago to compute artillery trajectories!
“2) A solid scientific theory that is based on many decades of intense research, data collection, testing, etc, done by highly qualified scientists worldwide.”
The etc being censorship.
UUUUUMMMMMMM then why are the same “highly qualified scientists” becoming the skeptics?
Ohh noooo!!! God has been trapped in our computer models, since we used them long ago to compute artillery trajectories!
Computing trajectory is exponentially more probable than estimating the climate change for the next 100 years.
donndublin posted January 10, 2009 at 2:41 pm
UUUUUMMMMMMM then why are the same “highly qualified scientists” becoming the skeptics?
——————-
They aren’t, except for a few arguing about details, which is normal.
donndublin posted January 10, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Computing trajectory is exponentially more probable than estimating the climate change for the next 100 years.
——————–
Projecting future climate is more like predicting tides.
‘The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change‘
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686