President Obama Working to Reverse President Bush's Environmental Legacy

May 01, 2009 by Miranda Marquit weblog
Kai Point Coal Mine.

(PhysOrg.com) -- In the U.S., there is a tradition followed by outgoing presidents: Enact as many new policies as possible -- especially if you think that the incoming president would disapprove. This practice has been used by presidents of both political parties with increasing fervor since Ronald Reagan. And President George W. Bush was no exception. In the months leading up to the inauguration of Barack Obama, Bush enacted a number of policies that stripped away a number of environmental protections. And, almost since he has taken the oath of office, President Obama's team has been working to reverse these policies.

So far, the effort to reverse the environmental policies enacted by Bush has been slow going. This is because some of the policies require an act of Congress to overturn. In cases where Congress is not needed, the courts may be appealed to, or new rules need to be made. For the most part, all of these decisions require some sort of review. And, as we know, when the government bureaucracy has to engage in a review process (or any process), the paperwork piles up and politics slows things down. But that's not to say there hasn't been any success. Two of the most recent victories claimed by the Obama Administration include:

1. Endangered species. Bush had gotten rid of rules that required an independent assessment of government project impacts of . Many argued that this weakening of the would lead to environmental problems. In March, though, Obama managed to reinstate the rule. Before government agencies can move forward with projects, or approve projects on government land, scientists have to review the impact on endangered species. This includes requiring oil and gas companies to have their projects reviewed for possible danger to before they engage in Arctic projects.

2. Mining waste. In the later days of the Bush Administration, it was decided that mountaintop mining operations could, in fact, dump their waste near streams and rivers. While many environmentalists feel that mountaintop mining itself is a problem, and would like to see the practice ended altogether, the reversal still represents a victory. It means that miners have to continue the practice of keeping waste out of waterways.

In addition to the above regulations, the EPA is getting some of its power back, after being largely undercut by the Bush Administration. The EPA is reconsidering a permit issued for a coal fired power plant last summer. The permit was approved, but no environmental impact assessment was done, and there are a number of issues that the EPA would like to address -- including those put forth by some residents of the Navajo Nation who are concerned about the impacts the plant would have on their land.

Other environmental policies carried over from the Bush years that the Obama Administration wants to reverse include America's role in global efforts to curb climate change, exempting factory farms from air quality reports, allowing companies to burn hazardous waste for fuel and costly and polluting oil shale development. In some cases, though, concerned citizens are doing the work for the government, challenging Bush era policies in court and asking for their own injunctions.

© 2009 PhysOrg.com

Explore further: Researchers question emergency water treatment guidelines

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Obama reverses Bush rule changes on endangered species

Mar 03, 2009

President Barack Obama on Tuesday restored rules requiring assessment by wildlife experts on the impact of government projects on endangered species, revoking the policy of the former Bush administration.

Salazar reviews 'midnight' endangered species rule

Apr 19, 2009

(AP) -- U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says he will make a decision in the coming weeks on whether to overturn a controversial Bush administration regulation that limits the reach of the Endangered Species ...

Court rules against Bush administration

Mar 20, 2006

A federal appeals court has overturned a clean-air regulation issued by the Bush administration, ruling in favor of environmental advocacy groups.

Ethanol plant restrictions may be lifted

Apr 09, 2007

Plants that make ethanol may be able to run with fewer environmental rules and less pollution control equipment, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported.

Recommended for you

Researchers question emergency water treatment guidelines

14 hours ago

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) recommendations for treating water after a natural disaster or other emergencies call for more chlorine bleach than is necessary to kill disease-causing pathogens ...

European climate at the +2 C global warming threshold

15 hours ago

A global warming of 2 C relative to pre-industrial climate has been considered as a threshold which society should endeavor to remain below, in order to limit the dangerous effects of anthropogenic climate change.

User comments : 63

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

grimmjack66
3.2 / 5 (22) May 01, 2009
Physorg please... please... leave the Obama cheer leading to the failing Pop Science media like "Discover" and "Scientific American" and the sycophantic boot licking to the almost bankrupt Main Stream Media.

Believe it or not there are a lot of people that have not fell head over heels in love with the new President and find the endless pandering sickening and I personally am as sick and tired of hearing about Obama as I was of hearing about Bush!
GrayMouser
3.3 / 5 (14) May 01, 2009
I wouldn't go cheering Obama on in his side-stepping the regulation process by overturning (without administrative review) regulations that were put in place after a review period as required by the Administrative Procedure Act.
Shootist
2.8 / 5 (15) May 01, 2009
At home freezing in the dark. Modern western environmentalists are (what's a nice word for fascist?).
barkster
3.2 / 5 (17) May 01, 2009
What the F--- is this? PHYSORG taking ques from the New York Times! This is blatant political kiss-up and has no place here. Shame on PHYSORG for letting it happen.

Ms. Marquit... I just searched every article you've written for PHSYORG. And it is a rather impressive list of scientifically focused physics articles you've amassed.

So how could you go and do something this utterly DUMB? Have you been out smoking dope with the ELF crowd or watching too many replays of "Silent Running" since your last article in Jan 2007?
paulo
1.9 / 5 (17) May 01, 2009
yeah who needs air. fck those goddam hippies.
WeAreGods
3.2 / 5 (18) May 01, 2009
Keep up the political pandering Physorg. We're too stupid to tell your biased and liberal. Maybe we'll start believing coal plants are evil. Who wants electricity anyway. I stopped reading Popular Science to get away from leftist, political indoctrination. Keep it up and I'll stop reading your news too.
vos
3.9 / 5 (11) May 02, 2009
been seeing allot of this totally unscientific enviro/greenie crap here on physorg. Its particularly disturbing because this forum is presented as science first and foremost, but when given a chance to spout the PC line they drop straight to their knees and slob up any fake or unproven ascertains in what looks like an attempt to push the greenie agenda.
Modernmystic
2.4 / 5 (8) May 02, 2009
Yeah and when these articles all get about 80 plus votes when most get less than 20 it shows that at least one group or individual has THEIR own agenda on this site too.
SDDuude
3.7 / 5 (6) May 02, 2009
Apparently, they don't screen out political columns on physorg.
Velanarris
3.8 / 5 (6) May 02, 2009
Yeah and when these articles all get about 80 plus votes when most get less than 20 it shows that at least one group or individual has THEIR own agenda on this site too.
Yeah that's probably just the administrative staff on the site letting us know their opinions before any of us add a comment.
Gammakozy
3.6 / 5 (12) May 02, 2009
Obama is a radical socialist and has surrounded himself with zealots from a variety of disciplines. Prediction: His hatred of Bush and blind acceptance of Gore's global warming hoax will cripple the economy and turn America into a third world country.
freethinking
2.9 / 5 (11) May 02, 2009
Just got back from looking at the website www.democratsareajoke.com and I realize how right the blogger is, the media is biased, and anyone who thinks physorg is nutral must be a radical leftist. But I have to admit that physorg does have some good information, and a lot of entertainment value.
Shootist
3.4 / 5 (10) May 02, 2009
"paulo - 20 hours ago
yeah who needs air. fck those goddam hippies."

How old are you? You certainly aren't old enough to have ever really seen SMOG, else your comment would contain some hint of truth. Had you been in Los Angeles, CA in 1968, before Nixon supported and signed the Clean Air Act, you would have seen REAL SMOG.

Today, the emissions from Power Plants and Automobiles are often cleaner than the ambient atmosphere and they become cleaner every year.

When was the last time you heard that the Potomac River had caught on fire?

You do realize that there are no Love Canals have been created within the last 40 years, at least not in the United States. China, India and Russia might be a different story but the Great and Powerful OZ is in Washington, DC, not Beijing, New Delhi or Moscow.

The general environment in North America is cleaner now than it has been in 100 years.

So get your head out of your ass and marvel at the progress that has been made since 1970 and don't fall into the "progressive" trap of Henny Penny and Goosey Lucy; the fracking sky is falling and it's all mankind's fault.
GrayMouser
5 / 5 (4) May 03, 2009

You do realize that there are no Love Canals have been created within the last 40 years

Do you realize that "Love Canal" was constructed in a manner which meets modern toxic waste disposal laws?
The whole "Love Canal" story was caused by bad research done by a post-grad, greed by the local city, and a high water table. When the battery company was forced to sell the property to the city they managed to get a contract that it would be park land. When the city rezoned it to residential the battery company protested and managed to get a promise that the housing would be without basements. When the zoning board allowed houses with basements the battery company protested again and was ignored. The wastes were in clay pits that meet modern standards and when rain water filled those pits it started to seep into the basements of the houses (which were dug in to the pits.) Then along came a post-grad with bad lab techniques and that wanted to make a name for herself by running to the press before confirming her results (which were wrong.) After that it was a media and court circus. Much like Hansen and Gore with AGW.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) May 03, 2009
Wow up to 130 votes now, how much you wanna bet one of these eco whiners got a bunch of his buddies on one of the many brainwashing sites out there to make accounts here to skew the voting?

"They just always vote down the truth on physorg...boooohhhoooo..booohoooo hoooooo!"

I mean 130 votes? At least you'd think they'd be less obvious about it.
RAL
4.3 / 5 (6) May 03, 2009
I'm becoming convinced that what is needed is a PhysOrg that does physics and science and not Obama cheerleading. Another insult to PhysOrg readers.
Nemo
4 / 5 (2) May 03, 2009
I have to say, not dumping mine waste into streams does sort of make sense..

Simply reporting on the president's environmental activities doesn't strike me as biased reporting. It is what it is. The people who are reacting in these comments seem to be reacting to Obama rather than the story itself.
vio1ion
3.5 / 5 (2) May 03, 2009
I have to say, not dumping mine waste into streams does sort of make sense..

Simply reporting on the president's environmental activities doesn't strike me as biased reporting. It is what it is. The people who are reacting in these comments seem to be reacting to Obama rather than the story itself.


Could not have said better !
By the way, being greener means new technologies, means also that this economical sector will flourish. Individuals who are the first to find new ideas and patent it will undoubtedly make a lot of money. The world's population is arising. And since we all live on the same sphere. That represent a whole lotta people to sell to. It would be a great way out of the recession !!
Shootist
2.6 / 5 (5) May 03, 2009

"Do you realize that "Love Canal" was constructed in a manner which meets modern toxic waste disposal laws?"

It became a waste dump in 1896. You are not suggesting that environmental laws haven't changed since then, are you? Quod erat demonstrandum.
GrayMouser
3 / 5 (2) May 03, 2009
"Do you realize that "Love Canal" was constructed in a manner which meets modern toxic waste disposal laws?"



It became a waste dump in 1896. You are not suggesting that environmental laws haven't changed since then, are you? Quod erat demonstrandum.

Yes, the laws changed. The dump exceeded the laws at the time it was created and still met or exceeded the laws in place in the early 1980s.
Shootist
2.3 / 5 (3) May 03, 2009
So. No more Love Canals since the early 80's. Good enough then.

Doesn't change the argument one iota.

The Potomac isn't on fire. You can see the snow capped mountains to the east of LA. And there are actually fish in the St. Lawrence.

While the Hudson River hasn't frozen solid enough at Haarlem Heights for cannon to cross, in perhaps 150 years, the North American environment is cleaner now than at any time in the last 100 years. Which was the point.
Fazer
4 / 5 (1) May 03, 2009
Hey guys, and gals (if there are any here),

I don't want to jump into this fray right now, but I do want to ask everyone's opinion about what exactly the ratings mean, especially the article specific ratings.

Does your vote indicate:

- whether or not you agree with the article
- how well the article was written
- how important the subject matter is
- all or none of the above

The reason I ask is that I bet many people vote a 5 just to keep the article relevant and the discussion open. More importantly, people may be voting for many different reasons, muddying the results completely.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (4) May 04, 2009
Hey guys, and gals (if there are any here),



I don't want to jump into this fray right now, but I do want to ask everyone's opinion about what exactly the ratings mean, especially the article specific ratings.



Does your vote indicate:



- whether or not you agree with the article

- how well the article was written

- how important the subject matter is

- all or none of the above



The reason I ask is that I bet many people vote a 5 just to keep the article relevant and the discussion open. More importantly, people may be voting for many different reasons, muddying the results completely.


Well you're wrong. Look and how many votes environmental articles started getting a few months ago (and the overall rating), and look at how many votes they got a few months before that and their ratings...totally opposite in both respects.

Nice try tho.
p1ll
3.7 / 5 (3) May 04, 2009
when I see an article that pisses me off on physorg, I usually leave a comment. When I read an interesting article I usually dont...

Seems normal that when physorg posts an article that pisses people off, people REACT. I dont think anyone is gaming the votes, the fact is controversial or stupid articles on physorg generate alot of activity.

The AGW articles on physorg should be on al gore's site, not here. WHen I see one, it pisses me off because no, the debate isnt over.

This article wasn't too bad, it just stated what obama is doing about bush's policies. there's no debate in that. It's just a lame story that belongs in newsweek or discovery magazine, not here.

So, PHYSORG, are you listening? You know the kind of articles we like and don't like. No one is going to miss your one-sided reporting on AGW. If you balanced that with oposing views, it would make a GREAT DEBATE.

I suggest everyone have a quick look at : www.wattsupwiththat.com

its a great AGW blog that makes physorg AGW articles look amateur. the physorg writers who cover all the AGW crap wouldn't last 5 minutes with this guy before looking biased and foolish.

p1ll
3.3 / 5 (3) May 04, 2009
please physorg, balance your AGW coverage with some reasonable debate. thanks in advance!
lengould100
2 / 5 (4) May 04, 2009
The AGW articles on physorg should be on al gore's site, not here. WHen I see one, it pisses me off because no, the debate isnt over.
Perfect. Discussion of any topic where the debate is still open "pisses you off", eh? Typical extremist-right.
lengould100
2.2 / 5 (5) May 04, 2009
The repetitiveness of the above makes me wonder how many anti-AGW individuals actually are members here. Looks a lot like two or three persons with multiple logins trying to impress a boss?
Velanarris
4.8 / 5 (4) May 04, 2009
Hey Len,

http://www.nytime...tml?_r=1

Thanks,

VA


Perfect. Discussion of any topic where the debate is still open "pisses you off", eh? Typical extremist-right.
I thought the consensus was in...
wiyosaya
1.3 / 5 (4) May 04, 2009
The Limbaugh crowd is sure out en-mass here.

The article's scientific basis is in the plethora of published reports if any of you would just keep up on your science.

While I might agree that making EPA regulations voluntary is a good idea, a practice that the wonderful Ronald Reagan started and has been followed by every God fearing republican since, no one wants to follow those regulations because they whine they cost too much. So...

Earth vs $$$$.

Should sound familiar to some...
Birger
4.8 / 5 (4) May 04, 2009
As I recall, during the last 8 years respected journals like "Nature" and "Science" have published many articles criticizing EPA budget cuts and a politicized appointment policy for senior administrators. I see two possible explanations. 1: Every scientific editor in the world is part of a liberal conspiracy to discredit Bush, or 2: EPA really HAS suffered severe budget cuts and a politicized management.

Furthermore, EPA is not the only part of the research community that has seen a more positive attitude from the current administration. In this matter, Obama merely seems to revert to the science policy of Eisenhower, who gave science high priority and was the first US president to have a scientific advisor. Historically, the adverse attitude to scientific advice 2001-2008 is an anomaly both for USA and for the Republican party.

BTW, the scientific truth will always be revealed by matching predictions to test results, and not by referring to ideologies. If I eventually turn out to be mistaken on issues like pollution, I might get frustrated but I will accept it, and I will not indulge in name-calling. Leave the venom to the reality shows.
Velanarris
5 / 5 (3) May 04, 2009
Earth vs $$$$.

Should sound familiar to some...

It does. It sounds just like the ridiculous strawman argument that every rabid environmentalist/conservationist/socialist brings to the forefront. Wealth creation does not equal out to environmental destruction. And if you think it does, educate yourself.
wiyosaya
1.5 / 5 (4) May 04, 2009
Earth vs $$$$.



Should sound familiar to some...



It does. It sounds just like the ridiculous strawman argument that every rabid environmentalist/conservationist/socialist brings to the forefront. Wealth creation does not equal out to environmental destruction. And if you think it does, educate yourself.

I guess that some people just fly off the handle without reading a comment. That's the way that I see it. Someone responded to the obvious sarcastic response of "we don't need air" as if the person was serious.

Surely, my comment pointed the finger at people who are willing to make a profit at any cost. Believe it or not, there are people out there like that, and as long as there are people out there that consider making a profit at any cost to be completely acceptable, we will need legislation to deal with these people. These are the people to whom "voluntary" means "if it costs something it costs too much" and are the kind of people that need legislation to keep them on the right path.

Sorry, but making profits from practices that harm others is not acceptable human behavior, and my apologies if you interpreted my comment in any other manner.
p1ll
4 / 5 (4) May 04, 2009
The repetitiveness of the above makes me wonder how many anti-AGW individuals actually are members here. Looks a lot like two or three persons with multiple logins trying to impress a boss?

[qPerfect. Discussion of any topic where the debate is still open "pisses you off", eh? Typical extremist-right.

the debate still openpisses me off?? What?? I think you're confused.. listen. Al gore says the debate is OVER (and you do too). I and many other people say no its not. the debate IS open but not here on physorg other than in the comments. so what are you talking about?

I assume you looked at the link I posted because you like to inform yourself of both sides of an issue. I read every AGW and enviro article on physorg and like to think I have a full picture of the issue. I know each sides points and counterpoints.

Oh, and people logging in with multiple names?? to impress the boss? How would that even impress a boss??!

and lastly, Velanarris gets it. educate yourself and read his comments. or maybe they're mine, under my other account of course
p1ll
3.5 / 5 (4) May 04, 2009
As far as I know, the USA isnt a toxic dump. We take care of our environment better than any industrialized nation. By far. I have no problems with Obama's choice to reverse some of the environmental policies of Bush. It's just such an Obama fanboy story.

Without evil rich people destroying mother earth for fun and profit, most of you wouldnt have a job. :P
Velanarris
5 / 5 (3) May 04, 2009
Looks like AGW was dealt another blow recently. The AGW party line has been pushed back from "The consensus is in" to "Open for debate". Soon it will reach "relegated to history" and the cries will become so ignored, and the funding so shortened, that "global cooling" will be the new consensus, with the same famous players. Give it a decade, I'll be waiting.
barkster
5 / 5 (3) May 04, 2009
Looks like AGW was dealt another blow recently. The AGW party line has been pushed back from "The consensus is in" to "Open for debate". Soon it will reach "relegated to history" and the cries will become so ignored, and the funding so shortened, that "global cooling" will be the new consensus, with the same famous players. Give it a decade, I'll be waiting.
I'll ignore it then, too... and probably just turn my thermostat back up to 73. :-)
arcticireland
4.7 / 5 (3) May 05, 2009
Obama is just copying Blair/Brown in the UK.Get more than half the voters onto welfare/job"creation"schemes/spurious civil-service jobs etc and you get to stay in power for years.Think about it.
Ethelred
2.5 / 5 (4) May 05, 2009
I hate taking on people here that actually understand that the environment needs protection but this post was STUPID. (Or maybe I misinterpreted the point of view of the author - see the end.)



[Q]How old are you?[/Q]

Can you say SARCASM? I bet you can't. That post was blatant sarcasm. How old are you that you can't recognize something that obvious.

Had you been in Los Angeles, CA in 1968, before Nixon supported and signed the Clean Air Act, you would have seen REAL SMOG.


Good point but you clearly directed it at someone that agreed with you.

Then again Nixon was and environmental nutcase by the standards of many here and the Bushites. Reagan as well. Reagan thought trees caused smog.

When was the last time you heard that the Potomac River had caught on fire?


Never. It was the Cuyahoga River.

Check your temper and your facts before posting. There a few anti-environmentalists around here that are not incompetent. True, most of the Neo-Cons on this thread are just frothing at the mouth themselves but you don't have to make it easy for them.

http://en.wikiped...ga_River

You do realize that there are no Love Canals have been created within the last 40 years, at least not in the United States. China, India and Russia might be a different story but the Great and Powerful OZ is in Washington, DC, not Beijing, New Delhi or Moscow.


True. Still badly aimed.

[]qThe general environment in North America is cleaner now than it has been in 100 years.

I sincerely doubt that. The last 70 years yes. Maybe even 80. Now a lot of the cities are cleaner that 100 years ago. Just not the general environment. The Eastern and Midwestern industrial cities are certainly cleaner. Los Angeles isn't cleaner that it was 100 years ago. Sure is cleaner than when I was a kid though. The whole basin is cleaner.

So get your head out of your ass and marvel at the progress that has been made since 1970


Unfortunately Nixon was the last ELECTED Republican President that was competent on the environment. (Ford was competent but not elected.)

and don't fall into the "progressive" trap of Henny Penny and Goosey Lucy; the fracking sky is falling and it's all mankind's fault.


It is Mankind's fault. Do you think industrial pollution and mining tailing contamination comes from nature?

I may have made and incorrect assumption at the start of this. You may just be of the opinion that Republicans have been good for the environment. Nixon was. Ford was. At least in comparison to those that came after.

Bush was bad. Obama has a lot of things to fix because of his idiocies. ]

Scientific American does politics too. Physorg has the same right. Politics has damaged science in the US for the last eight years. Its time for that to end.

Ethelred
arcticireland
2.5 / 5 (2) May 06, 2009
Bush was bad. Obama has a lot of things to fix because of his idiocies.

Bush enabled you to continue in the freedom to post here and speak freely.As a non-American I can see him from a different point.I do worry about the new kid appeasing Islam and the possibilty of the US abandoning its abilty to help out the rest of us.
But back to science
Politics has damaged science in the US for the last eight years. Its time for that to end.


I don't agree with that at all unless failing to bow down to Gore et al is in any way damaging to science.



Ethelred
Velanarris
4.5 / 5 (2) May 06, 2009
Politics has damaged science for the past 40 years, not the past 8. Sure there are a few good things that have come about. CFC reduction, smog reduction, absolutely good things.

Shutting down the logging industry in the northwest was a horrible thing. The endangered species act was good but politics completely screwed it up and made it not only a money pit, but setup the EPA to be the ultimate example of waste, overhead, and do nothing government programs.
Ethelred
2.5 / 5 (4) May 06, 2009
Bush enabled you to continue in the freedom to post here and speak freely


Are you insane? Bush made the world a vastly more dangerous place. He lied about Iraq and got a lot of people killed from his own foolish behavior.

As a non-American I can see him from a different point.I do worry about the new kid appeasing Islam and the possibilty of the US abandoning its abilty to help out the rest of us.


Islam has gone farther into fanaticism because of his unwarranted invasion of Iraq. He gave help to the nutcases by making the US look like we are out to get all of them. Without the waste of resources in an unnecessary war the Taliban would not have revived. Now they are trying to take over Pakistan. This should not have happened and its Bush's doing more than the Taliban. He gave them the kind of help they needed. Hate.

You are aware that Pakistan has the Bomb aren't you?

I don't agree with that at all unless failing to bow down to Gore et al is in any way damaging to science.


Then you are as ignorant as Bush. His administration frequently covered up real science whenever it conflicted with Bush's ideaology. Gore has nothing to do with anything in the article. Nor much of anything to do with Bush damaging science in the US. Global warming was brought into this as a red herring as it wasn't mentioned in the article.

Ethelred
arcticireland
not rated yet May 06, 2009
what a lot of personal abuse in one post ,my goodness.

Not one American died on American soil once Mr.Bush got a handle on things,He was not elected to protect anyone else.

Islam is what? when i first went to Saudi in the early 60's the nice people there hated us western Christians and seems to me that they have done so since they lost Spain and before that even.

Never ever call me ignorant OK?
arcticireland
not rated yet May 06, 2009
Apologies to all for having to answer the abuse above,maybe some chopping off of hands would be a good thing?
Velanarris
3 / 5 (2) May 06, 2009
Bush enabled you to continue in the freedom to post here and speak freely

Are you insane? Bush made the world a vastly more dangerous place. He lied about Iraq and got a lot of people killed from his own foolish behavior.
Actually, we had the most incidences and deaths due to military and terrorist action during William Clinton's time in office. We were just too busy talking about blowjobs and stained dresses.

As a non-American I can see him from a different point.I do worry about the new kid appeasing Islam and the possibilty of the US abandoning its abilty to help out the rest of us.

Islam has gone farther into fanaticism because of his unwarranted invasion of Iraq. He gave help to the nutcases by making the US look like we are out to get all of them. Without the waste of resources in an unnecessary war the Taliban would not have revived. Now they are trying to take over Pakistan. This should not have happened and its Bush's doing more than the Taliban. He gave them the kind of help they needed. Hate.
Actually you're both wrong. Islam has nothing to do with the middleeast or the US. Islam itself has no grudges nor do they have any affectation towards war with the west, or christianity. That is evidenced by all of Asia (sans China). Islam is a peaceful religion full of peaceful people. The middle east fanatics, although they follow some of the tenets of Islam, are about as far from Islamic as one could be, and their primary gripe with the US is due to their dictators actions within their own borders to appease the US, while the US ships weapons and funds into Israel.
You are aware that Pakistan has the Bomb aren't you?
We all are. But the Taliban are not Muslim, They're actually Pashtuni anti nationalists. Some are Muslims, most are not.
I don't agree with that at all unless failing to bow down to Gore et al is in any way damaging to science.

Then you are as ignorant as Bush. His administration frequently covered up real science whenever it conflicted with Bush's ideaology. Gore has nothing to do with anything in the article. Nor much of anything to do with Bush damaging science in the US. Global warming was brought into this as a red herring as it wasn't mentioned in the article.
How so? Lay out a few things that Bush hid from us about science. He didn't sign Kyoto, then again neither did Gore or Clinton. Bush maintained a lot of the policies from the Clinton era, during which Al Gore himself presided over congress.
arcticireland
4.5 / 5 (2) May 06, 2009

Actually you're both wrong. Islam has nothing to do with the middleeast or the US. Islam itself has no grudges nor do they have any affectation towards war with the west, or christianity. That is evidenced by all of Asia (sans China).


So the moslem atrocities in Thailand,the Philippines,India,Indonesia are peace actions?Not to mention the UK,Spain etc



Islam is a peaceful religion full of peaceful people. Islam peaceful ? since when? Have you read the Koran and its dictates as to how to deal with non muslims ? perhaps the Caliphate is not really what they want?

But the Taliban are not Muslim, They're actually Pashtuni anti nationalists. Some are Muslims, most are not.

Beg pardon? So the imposition of Sharia is just a pastime to keep the boys amused in between beheadings? The Taliban are the most savage facet of islam to be found .
Velanarris
3 / 5 (2) May 06, 2009
So the moslem atrocities in Thailand,the Philippines,India,Indonesia are peace actions?Not to mention the UK,Spain etc
The modern attrocities are not Muslim in origin. You'll have to cite references otherwise to convince me.

Islam peaceful ? since when? Have you read the Koran and its dictates as to how to deal with non muslims ?
Actually yes I have. I think you're making the common misconception of how the term Muslim and Non-Muslim are dictates by the Koran.



Non-muslim does not mean "those who do not believe in Islam". Non-muslim means "evil people".



From the Koran:"When the enemies of the Muslims kindle a fire for war, Allah extinguishes it. They strive to create disorder in earth, and Allah loves not those who create disorder." (Koran 28:78).



Now you have to realize that in the time that the Koran was written Mohammed wasn't a prophet, he was a General who engaged in territorial disputes with the Christians and the Jews of the time. Hence a lot of the "hateful" language.

But the Taliban are not Muslim, They're actually Pashtuni anti nationalists. Some are Muslims, most are not.




Beg pardon? So the imposition of Sharia is just a pastime to keep the boys amused in between beheadings? The Taliban are the most savage facet of islam to be found .


Which right there makes them not Islamic. War is defensive and preventative.



Jihad does not mean holy war or blood feud, it means struggle.

edit: I am not a Muslim, I'm actually an Atheist, but to deny any religion until you have studied its message doesn't provide a fair and accurate description.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) May 06, 2009
what a lot of personal abuse in one post ,my goodness.


I admit that I went overboard.

That was still a lot of stupid or ignorant statements in one post.

Not one American died on American soil once Mr.Bush got a handle on things,He was not elected to protect anyone else.


He got a lot of Americans killed in Iraq and others murdered elsewhere by newly created fanatics. Americans are not just in the US. And YOU were looking for the US to save your ass so don't bother claiming that Bush was only elected to save Americans. And he didn't get a handle on things, he went stupid with fear. Afganistan would have been invaded by any remotely competent President, heck even the Presidential Retard managed it.

Generally Americans wouldn't agree with you on that statement either. We have friends and allies for instance. Just less than we did before Bush.

{Islam is what? when i first went to Saudi in the early 60's the nice people there hated us western Christians and seems to me that they have done so since they lost Spain and before that even.


Islam seems to breed fanatics at least as bad a Christianity did before western governments gave up being religious. At the moment Turkey is trying to have a secular government in a Moslem nation. Its working fairly well so far, at least in that sense.

It is more likely that Islamic nations will choose secular governments than the people in them will give up Islam. Bush played into the hands of the fanatics when he invaded Iraq based on lies and active ignorance.

Never ever call me ignorant OK?


Then don't act that way. Ignorance is repairable. Stupidity is bone deep and even stupid people can learn things. Unless a person becomes actively ignorant like the Presidential Ignoramous.

Ethelred
GrayMouser
not rated yet May 06, 2009
The repetitiveness of the above makes me wonder how many anti-AGW individuals actually are members here. Looks a lot like two or three persons with multiple logins trying to impress a boss?

That would be intellectually dishonest. Kind of what the Anti-AGW crowd is accusing the pro-AGW crowd of...
GrayMouser
not rated yet May 06, 2009
Hey guys, and gals (if there are any here),

I don't want to jump into this fray right now, but I do want to ask everyone's opinion about what exactly the ratings mean, especially the article specific ratings.

Does your vote indicate:
- whether or not you agree with the article
- how well the article was written
- how important the subject matter is
- all or none of the above

The reason I ask is that I bet many people vote a 5 just to keep the article relevant and the discussion open. More importantly, people may be voting for many different reasons, muddying the results completely.

All of the above, typos, and what side of the bed I got up on (I think.)

For an average article I will give a 3 as an average score. Written ok but nothing new or unexpected.
GrayMouser
1 / 5 (1) May 06, 2009
Hey Len,
http://www.nytime...tml?_r=1

Thanks,
VA

Perfect. Discussion of any topic where the debate is still open "pisses you off", eh? Typical extremist-right.
I thought the consensus was in...


Hot off the presses:
http://www.thereg...terview/
GrayMouser
3 / 5 (2) May 06, 2009
As far as I know, the USA isnt a toxic dump. We take care of our environment better than any industrialized nation. By far. I have no problems with Obama's choice to reverse some of the environmental policies of Bush. It's just such an Obama fanboy story.

Without evil rich people destroying mother earth for fun and profit, most of you wouldnt have a job. :P

Kinda like the American Plains Indians running entire herds of Bison over a cliff, taking some of it and leaving the rest to rot. It was what could be done at the time with what was available. It certainly was required to survive.
GrayMouser
3 / 5 (2) May 06, 2009
It is Mankind's fault. Do you think industrial pollution and mining tailing contamination comes from nature?

Well, yes I do. There's mercury and lead in the hills where I live. Lots of it. There are streams so full of heavy metals that nothing lives in them and you can't drink from them (at least not long.)
Humans didn't create lead or mercury or uranium. A super nova did. And that's natural.
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) May 06, 2009
Actually, we had the most incidences and deaths due to military and terrorist action during William Clinton's time in office.


Would you like to give some evidence to support that? Reagan had more military deaths due to terrorism than Clinton last I heard. And that is just counting American military personel.

We were just too busy talking about blowjobs and stained dresses.


That was a Republican problem, not mine. She wasn't complaining, so it wasn't any ones business. Besides Mrs. Clinton that is.

Actually you're both wrong. Islam has nothing to do with the middleeast or the US. Islam itself has no grudges nor do they have any affectation towards war with the west, or christianity.


If it wasn't for Israel that might be true. Barring the fanatics that want to spread Islam by the sword anyway. There have always been at least some of those. Osama Bin Laden seems to be one those.

That is evidenced by all of Asia (sans China). Islam is a peaceful religion full of peaceful people.


The Middle East IS part of Asia. Much of that Islamic territory became that way by the military invasion of Islamic forces. Mecca itself became Islamic by the sword and not by conversion.

and their primary gripe with the US is due to their dictators actions within their own borders to appease the US, while the US ships weapons and funds into Israel.


Also that we have troops in Saudi Arabia and now are in Iraq. Iran's leaders seem to hate us on general principles. We are the Great Satan after all. And I thought that was Microsoft.

But the Taliban are not Muslim, They're actually Pashtuni anti nationalists. Some are Muslims, most are not.


Pashtunis are an ethnic group. They are Islamic these days and have been for a long time.

Yes, I had to look them up. Ignorance is repairable.

Somehow I don't remember them being mentioned in George McDonald Fraser's Flashman. That book is why I knew the Russians were in trouble there and we are playing with degraded dynamite ourselves. Get the job done and get out but Bush decided to waste money, lives and time by invading Iraq instead.

It will be interesting to see if Obama can pull it of after all the time Bush wasted. Things are not looking good at present.

How so? Lay out a few things that Bush hid from us about science.


Hid? Successfully? We don't know yet. Failed to hide but tried to? Evidence for Global Warming of course. Denial of stem cell research. Refusal to do the enviromental impact studies that were mentioned in the article. The Hafnium Bomb nonsense. He even thought Creationism should be taught in science classes.

He didn't sign Kyoto, then again neither did Gore or Clinton.


I noticed that. I am not sure its a good idea either but something is needed.

Ethelred
Ethelred
4 / 5 (1) May 06, 2009
Well, yes I do. There's mercury and lead in the hills where I live. Lots of it. There are streams so full of heavy metals that nothing lives in them and you can't drink from them (at least not long.)


And how much of the released metals are due to mining in the past? Tailings are not natural. Water leaking out of abandoned and flooded mines aren't either.

Ethelred

Velanarris
4.5 / 5 (2) May 06, 2009
Evidence for Global Warming of course.
Wow, please tell us you don't believe Hansen and Mann's lies about being censored by the Bush regime...
Denial of stem cell research.
That's not hiding anything. That was coming down on one side of an ethical debate.
Refusal to do the enviromental impact studies that were mentioned in the article
Prove refusal. The author of this abstract has already been shown to be a great exaggerator along the lines of the green fanatic movement.
The Hafnium Bomb nonsense.
Hafnium bomb nonsense? Are you referring to the anti personal bombs we've been dropping since the first Iraq war? The ones that a doctor from the WHO said "I've never seen injuries like this in my entire career." When they were simple shrapnel wounds?
He even thought Creationism should be taught in science classes.
I don't buy that, tastes like leftist propaganda, but you may have a point on this one if it holds true.
GrayMouser
1 / 5 (1) May 06, 2009
Well, yes I do. There's mercury and lead in the hills where I live. Lots of it. There are streams so full of heavy metals that nothing lives in them and you can't drink from them (at least not long.)


And how much of the released metals are due to mining in the past? Tailings are not natural. Water leaking out of abandoned and flooded mines aren't either.

Ethelred

Over all? Most of it is natural. In the case of the stream? All of it is natural.
When I was younger I sat in a lecture by Dr Cahill from UC Davis when he talked about investigating sick cattle. It turned out that the grass they were eating was pulling lead out of the soil and it was giving them lead poisoning. That was rolling country-side. Never developed and never a waste dump.
GrayMouser
3 / 5 (2) May 07, 2009
Evidence for Global Warming of course.
Wow, please tell us you don't believe Hansen and Mann's lies about being censored by the Bush regime...

If Bush had a problem with them he could have simply forced NASA to do an ethics investigation. Hansen would have been fired.

The Hafnium Bomb nonsense.
Hafnium bomb nonsense? Are you referring to the anti personal bombs we've been dropping since the first Iraq war? The ones that a doctor from the WHO said "I've never seen injuries like this in my entire career." When they were simple shrapnel wounds?

http://www.amazon...0258497/
Ethelred
1 / 5 (1) May 07, 2009
Wow, please tell us you don't believe Hansen and Mann's lies about being censored by the Bush regime..


I am talking about who ever Bush's administration suppressed when they did government studies that the Bushies didn't like. I know you are under the delusion that there is no problem. Your wrong.

That's not hiding anything. That was coming down on one side of an ethical debate.


It was his ideology getting in the way of real science.

The author of this abstract has already been shown to be a great exaggerator along the lines of the green fanatic movement.


Translation:

A lot of Neo-Cons on this site frothed at the mouth over accurate statements. I didn't see anyone showing errors. Just a lot of complaints about it being political which Physorg has the right to be. Only a small percentage of scientists are thrilled with the behavior of the Bush Aministration.

Hafnium bomb nonsense? Are you referring to the anti personal bombs we've been dropping since the first Iraq war?


Which aren't hafnium and not what I was talking about. Someone in Darpa thinks or thought they could make a hand grenade sized atomic explosive. With some odd form of hafnium.

When they were simple shrapnel wounds?


There are no simple shrapnel wounds except the minor ones. Techically there are no shrapnel wounds anymore since Shrapnel's design is no longer used. Again that isn't what I was talking about.

I don't buy that, tastes like leftist propaganda, but you may have a point on this one if it holds true.


You have no idea what leftist is, in the US even the Democrats are conservatives. And it is true, though you may not agree that Intelligent Design counts as Creationist. It is to me and the main proponents except Dr. Behe are Creationists, they just pretend they aren't.

http://www.washin...686.html

The only place in schools for Intelligent Design is a philosophy class. Or comparative religions and I don't think the Creationists are ready for that.

Ethelred
Ethelred
2.5 / 5 (2) May 07, 2009
It turned out that the grass they were eating was pulling lead out of the soil and it was giving them lead poisoning. That was rolling country-side.


Loco weed does that with selenium. But mines and their tailings increase the problems by exposing subterranean materials to the surface.

Of course many of those mines were dug by men long dead.

Ethelred
Velanarris
5 / 5 (1) May 07, 2009
I am talking about who ever Bush's administration suppressed when they did government studies that the Bushies didn't like. I know you are under the delusion that there is no problem. Your wrong.
So I'm wrong, but you have no evidence. Burden of proof is on you. And it's you're, not your.
It was his ideology getting in the way of real science.
No it wasn't, Bush can't MAKE a Democrat majority congress sign a bill. They have to sign it themselves. Call your congressman if you're displeased.
Translation:
A lot of Neo-Cons on this site frothed at the mouth over accurate statements. I didn't see anyone showing errors. Just a lot of complaints about it being political which Physorg has the right to be. Only a small percentage of scientists are thrilled with the behavior of the Bush Aministration.
No, the author's prior articles, look her up.
Which aren't hafnium and not what I was talking about. Someone in Darpa thinks or thought they could make a hand grenade sized atomic explosive. With some odd form of hafnium.
Ok, now I know what you're referring to, and you actually can make explosives with hafnium, it's similar to a thorium reaction but less stable, hence "atomic" weapon. It's not wrong, just not reasonable.
There are no simple shrapnel wounds except the minor ones. Techically there are no shrapnel wounds anymore since Shrapnel's design is no longer used. Again that isn't what I was talking about.
Actually the US and Israel employ strontium, and other element, based bombs which are a powderized shrapnel weapon.
You have no idea what leftist is, in the US even the Democrats are conservatives.
I absolutely know what a socialist is. Don't presume to denegrate the intellect of your opponent in a debate, it's a very poor tactic.
And it is true, though you may not agree that Intelligent Design counts as Creationist. It is to me and the main proponents except Dr. Behe are Creationists, they just pretend they aren't.
ID is not creationism. but creationist ideals are ID. ID doesn't require some etherial being to concoct us out of nothingness. Ancient astronaut theory is ID, cometary seeding is ID, yes, God created the Earth in 7 days is ID. But ID is not any one of those things.

ID means there is some intelligence that created the basic structures that lead to life. I don't agree with ID, but some of the evidence for ID is fairly compelling, not the Westboro Baptist evidence and 6000 year old flat earthers, but the engineers who study the structure of DNA and the insight they've seen in DNA's simple yet elegant design.
arcticireland
5 / 5 (1) May 07, 2009
Don't presume to denegrate the intellect of your opponent in a debate, it's a very poor tactic.

A tactic used by communists in the 1920's,then by the lefties who went to hide in Canada during the Viet Nam war,lefties who came back to try to dominate intellectual discussion and who filled far too many places in US education.The global warming cult use the same tactic but truth always wins out.You get a lot of this nonsense from the low-lifes who frequent the internet.
arcticireland
not rated yet May 07, 2009
At the moment Turkey is trying to have a secular government in a Moslem nation. Its working fairly well so far, at least in that sense.
Ethelred


Just for now perhaps

http://www.asiane...php?l=en&art=15165&size=A
Bogbrush
1 / 5 (3) May 08, 2009
Three cheers for Obama the charmer! A man of the people at last!!! Maybe Amricans will finally stop behaving if they have a God given right to trash the planet.

More news stories

Melting during cooling period

(Phys.org) —A University of Maine research team says stratification of the North Atlantic Ocean contributed to summer warming and glacial melting in Scotland during the period recognized for abrupt cooling ...