Tuesday
12Aug
Science? We Don't Need No Stinking Science!
Tuesday, August 12, 2008 at 12:48
From the Associated Press:
The Bush administration wants federal agencies to decide for themselves whether highways, dams, mines and other construction projects might harm endangered animals and plants. New regulations, which don't require the approval of Congress, would reduce the mandatory, independent reviews government scientists have been performing for 35 years, according to a draft obtained by The Associated Press.So, the wisdom of bureaucrats trumps science? I think not. This is just another assault on science. So, the Corps of Engineers will decide for itself whether its latest dam is good or bad for endangered species? Oh, but it gets better:
The draft rules also would bar federal agencies from assessing the emissions from projects that contribute to global warming and its effect on species and habitats.
Isn't that just the cutest little gag order you've ever seen? That's right - not only would the Bush Administration take scientists out of the picture, but it would then prohibit the newly-empowered bureaucrats from even considering greenhouse gas emissions in their "analysis." I understand that the overall impact of man's activities on climate change is still a "jury's out" question for many, but that doesn't mean that we completely ignore what we dump into the environment, for crying out loud.
I'm reminded of the MAD TV skit - "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA!" This is a ludicrously transparent attempt to gut the Endangered Species Act.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (27)
Global Warming=Science? Ha, ha, ha, good one! No, let's don't let that supposedly "endangered" polar bear stop a highway project in Missouri.
Republicanism = War on Facts.
Thomas, my point is simply that we can't just ignore what we do to the environment. I'm all for debate and discussion around every one of these projects, but to simply silence an entire avenue of legitimate scientific inquiry is ridiculous. That's like saying we don't need to consider the effect of new drugs on pregnant women...we should err on the side of caution.
The U.N. hockey stick data has never been independently reviewed. In peer circles that normally gets your report spit on. Data point after data point comes up with the unfortunate fact that since 1999 the earth has cooled. But keep pimping the "global warming" crisis libs.
Um, Thomas, how do you explain the government's own scientists--you know, the ones no longer allowed to speak to the public--that came to the same conclusions? I'm not saying that they're 100% right, but I think it reasonable--while the scientists still work on the question--to take prudent steps. Forbidding any analysis on the question is hardly prudent.
Global warming is such a biting issue for Americans when they can’t go on vacation, sit in warm houses and cold ones this winter because Nancy wants to save the planet and the left has Obama on a short leash. Oh by the way, global warming as a made-up lib issue is tanking with the American public. See poll.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/pn_20080811_9261.php
The 'science' behind the global warming theories isn't science.
Zoy, you seriously disappoint me.
Winston,
When so-called climate scientists seek to quash scientific inquiry and debate then you don't have science, you have belief.
key word: theory
Bureaucracy is what's MADE this whole global warming debate...
and this story is attacking the bureaucrats of it's opposition?
yes Wes... the wisdom of bureaucrats apparently trumps science
Plate tectonics will be the end of us all.
Continental drift...the doom of man!
Why not step out of a thirty-story window and test out that ole theory of gravity?
After all, it's just a theory . . .
Hey, you people who are suggesting that the theory of global warming needs to be proven before being accepted, STOP IT. Don't question anything. As Al Gore ponderously declared: "The debate [dramatic pause] is OVER."
time travel's a theory too...
but don't expect me to test it out by driving my Delorean 88 mph towards a brick wall...
besides... Deloreans cause global warming too
Folks, scientists on both sides of the climate change question agree on the effects of greenhouse gases on the environment. Almost all of them also agree that we seem to be in a warming state. The strongest difference of opinion lies in the question of whether man's actions have a marked effect, or if it's just part of a planetary cycle.
I would think that we would agree that the matter is not settled in either direction, yes? If so, why shouldn't take what small steps we can to minimize man's impact on the environment? If we wait until things are "proven" to everyone's satisfaction, it could easily be too late. I'm not talking about wholesale closings of factories or the complete abandonment of particular technologies, but what's wrong with simply saying "new stuff we do has to be cleaner?" What on earth is wrong with that? Isn't that more prudent than chugging down our merry path, only to find (10 or 20 years from now) that we've dumped a few more decades' worth of crap into the environment than we should have?
Who is arguing against conservation and clean air? I must have missed those posts.
That's the whole point of the article. Conservation includes endangered species, right? Clean air and water are important for endangered species, too, right?
Who in the administration is arguing against conservation and clean air?
This is all procedural crapola, not a way to violate pollution laws.
I repeat - conservation includes protection of endangered species. Thus, this move to gut the Endangered Species Act is an act against conservation.
What a leap of faith that is, to assume that the Endangered Species Act is divinely inspired, and therefore any alterations would be contrary to good conservation practices.
according to the left and their position on global warming...
we're all endangered species... so gut away.
Redbeard, I find it amazing that you (of all people) would put bureaucrats' knowledge above that of scientists when the question of environmental impact is raised. That isn't a "leap of faith," but rather common sense. I don't elevate my health insurer's opinion over that of my doctor, right?
Is that what you take away from my comments? I'm stunned.
Wes,
You imply that there is a scientific consensus on man-made global warming. There isn't.
Redbeard, when we're talking about putting bureaucrats over scientists in analyzing the impact of projects on endangered species, and you say this:
the clear inference is that you support the proposed change. No need to be "stunned;" it's a fairly straightforward reading of your comment.I suppose you are free to misrepresent my position as much as you like.