What is Digg?41 Comments
- InGenUse, on 09/24/2008, -3/+11Was this supposed to be a surprise?
- Winkleman, on 09/25/2008, -3/+11Only fifteen?
- Barbarino, on 09/25/2008, -0/+5Bush has created the largest wildlife sanctuary on the planet and they are working on another one even larger, much larger.... Yet few even know this or they bury it to bash Bush...
- settlesdown, on 09/25/2008, -0/+4Sooooo....there is no legal indictment? yeah. Keep your political blog spam off the science page. There are enough useful idiots on Digg anyway. This ***** is why I stopped subscribing to the main digg feed. Besides America WILL NOT elect Barack. Plain and simple.
- inactive, on 09/25/2008, -2/+6RTFA, retard.
- eternalsnows, on 09/25/2008, -0/+3It's such an indictment of the media that the sanctuary didn't get broader coverage when it was announced. The bias is painfully apparent.
- jayscot, on 09/25/2008, -2/+5GFTO with this political *****. Keep it in the right category. This is worse than the stupid street preachers.
- fugularity, on 09/25/2008, -1/+3...and what does trying to test pesticides on poor families have to do with your generalized "refutation" of environmental problems?
- Midtowner, on 09/25/2008, -2/+4So you're cool with dumping rocket fuel into our rivers and streams?
Right on. - fugularity, on 09/25/2008, -1/+3Okay, then I won't bury you, I'll just call you an ignoramous.
- Midtowner, on 09/25/2008, -0/+2Really? Do you know what chemical I'm talking about? Perchlorate?
Where in the word "perchlorate" do you glean that all we're talking about is hydrogen and oxygen? - inactive, on 09/25/2008, -0/+2@goon500
LOL
Don't make the mistake of thinking that just because YOU don't understand a word that other people are just as ignorant.
From your other comments on this thread it looks like the science is too much for you.
Just keep repeating the GOP talking points, it's easier. More dishonest, but easy. - felixleighton, on 09/25/2008, -0/+1I have a new phrase,
Will someone please think of the childr--er, environment?
Buried. - norman619, on 09/25/2008, -0/+1My guess is they can't but that's not the point of this article. This article details some of the wreckless and highly questionable actions of the EPA under his leadership.
Are you trying to say all the ***** pointed out in this article should be excused simply because the environment MAY be no worse off than it was when he entered office? Please tell me you aren't THAT ignorant. - fugularity, on 09/25/2008, -1/+2Waiting for some blindly partisan spam in the comments board...
- angryredplanet, on 09/25/2008, -2/+3First, this debate is off topic. I could tear your comment to shreds, but this is not the place for it and will refrain for the sake of civility.
Second, prove the science wrong... come back when you have a peer reviewed paper formally redacting the current consensus by the worlds scientists and scientific organisations on anthropogenic climate change. Good luck with that. You'll need it because you have nothing... not a single thing.
Goodbye. - jehan60188, on 09/25/2008, -0/+1Ron Paul
- bixby1, on 09/25/2008, -3/+4EPA not a big fan for the W.
- angryredplanet, on 09/26/2008, -0/+1@goon5000
The perchlorate ion contains chlorine and oxygen atoms (ClO4-).
Solid rocket boosters use ammonium perchlorate as an oxidiser. This chemical contains nitrogen, hydrogen, chlorine and oxygen atoms (NH4ClO4).
Groundwater contains perchlorate in it's chemical form and not as the constituent atoms in perchlorate (unless its chemically altered in-situ). To summarise, no, it's not good. - inactive, on 09/25/2008, -0/+1My only regret is that Bush wasn't even more anti-environment than he was. I dislike Bush on many issues, but I have no problems with his environmental stance.
I am anti-environmentalist and damn proud of it. Freedom is more important than the environment.
***** the environment. - sering, on 11/30/2008, -0/+1http://greatcar.freehostia.com
http://forexposed.com
http://tembol.freehostia.com/
http://dianika.com/hotel
http://dianika.com/insurance/
http://remboka.freehostia.com
http://wekoman.ej.am
http://wungka.freehostia.com/
http://unik.blogetery.com/ - eternalsnows, on 09/25/2008, -0/+1I don't see any proof of actual environmental or human damage in Boxer's litany of complaints. In the first two items she even admits that the EPA reversed its position to get in line with what she clearly thought it should do. "The EPA considered relaxing regulations governing tap water. But then it DIDN'T!" Uh, so what?
What does it mean that the Office of Children’s Health Protection is "severely weakened?" What does it mean that the National Marine Fisheries Service can be "largely" cut out of the process of reviewing new construction projects? I know Boxer wants me to think these are horrible things, but she hasn't done anything to convince me. Are actual children being harmed by this "severely" weakened agency? Are fish dying as a direct result of the NMFS being "cut out?" If so, then these are problems that need to be addressed. However, all Boxer has told me is that certain bureaucracies have undergone cutbacks, with no discussion of the consequences, positive or negative. - angryredplanet, on 09/26/2008, -0/+1@goon5000
"How about your scientists using inaccurate and fraudulent data?"
Since you won't give me specifics, I'll answer you generally. There have been errors and that's a fundamental part of the scientific process. The difference between classical science and climate science is that in climate science, one can't test a hypothesis in a closed system, unlike so many other branches of science. In climate science, if data is found that doesn't fit a model, the model is changed so that it does, i.e. the models are getting more accurate over time. This ensures that forecasts made from that model are more representative of the data. Models comprise only one part of this theory and are used primarily to forecast future climate - I'll leave you to find the others.
Climate science is also relatively juvenile, but don't mistake that for being inept or stupid. That's part of the reason that despite there being errors (many of which have been duly recognised and corrected) the reputable scientific organisations of the world - and this is important - STILL BACK THE THEORY.
This covers "inaccurate" and perhaps "erroneous" data, but "fraudulent" implies malicious intent to deceive, for which you will need some evidence to back your claim. I make no case that we live in a perfect world, there are frauds all around. However, not at the scale we are talking about here and with so much at stake.
The observational evidence is irrefutable. The heuristic data supports the theory. The current data supports predicted trends. The scientists are in consensus. What's your excuse?
"using words like "anthropogenic" proves that you're just a parrot."
Using ad hominem doesn't support or strengthen your argument so to correct you, my use of the term 'anthropogenic' proves that I'm not in denial as to humanity's role in the clear and current destruction of our planet. Every animal has a footprint, it's just that ours is abnormally large. - dimbulb771, on 09/25/2008, -2/+2People like you give the human species a bad name. ***** jackass.
- eneeR, on 09/25/2008, -1/+1Junior, when will you anti-intellectuals give it a break? You're becoming very tiresome with your nonsensical rants.
- coyoteblue, on 09/25/2008, -1/+1Oh ok. I guess all those, ya know, scientists, just don't have a clue.
- Midtowner, on 09/25/2008, -2/+2@Jayscot,
Is it really "political *****" to say that rules allowing the DOD to decide whether rocket fuel is harmful to your health rather than having the EPA set mcl's and regulate? Quite frankly, to say that allowing perchlorate to be dumped into our water supply is a bad thing. A very bad thing. I think that's descriptive, not normative, and certainly not political *****. I think there should be bipartisan support of making sure the DOD doesn't let highly toxic chemicals which should probably be Category 1 (right up there with nerve gas and plutonium) be dumped into our water.
Perchlorate, btw, was #7 on the list.
We used to not have 'annoying' laws like the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act. Back in those days, we had rivers so polluted that they'd catch on fire (as actually happened on national TV back in [I believe] 1972, when the nation saw the burning Cuyahoga River in all its blazing glory during Monday Night Football prompting the creation of the EPA.
It should be pretty clear to anyone with a vague sense of the history of the environmental movement that industry and its lobbyists do not have the people's best interests in mind when they argue for reduced monitoring or gutting of the provisions of environmental legislation in favor of industry. Most administrations have the good sense not to listen to industry when it argues that pollution is 'good for the economy,' but apparently not Bush. Again, that's probably more descriptive than normative, thus not political *****. - goon5000, on 09/25/2008, -1/+1if it has no detrimental effect, why not? remember, rocket fuel is just liquid hydrogen and oxygen
- norman619, on 09/25/2008, -1/+1This is an important topic for each and every administration past, present, and future. Unless of course you don't value a clean healthy environment for you and your kids to live in. When they are asking parents to subject their NEW BORNS to pesticide testing there is something terribly wrong.
- rblancarte, on 09/25/2008, -2/+2Not that I don't think that this is important, but the environment is a HUGE topic. However, I think that right now, this is one of the least of the Bush Administration problems.
At the same time, I have to say - who cares? This guy will be gone in about 4 months, for which we are all thankful. - inactive, on 09/25/2008, -0/+0"Proud to be stupid" seems to be a common theme among right wingers.
The GOP talking points are ignorant of the science and PROUD of it. - SilverBlade2k, on 09/25/2008, -1/+1Bush is more of a friend to Big Oil (and every other company), then a friend to the voters.
- goon5000, on 09/25/2008, -0/+0the anti-bush ship sailed months ago, get with the times loser
- Midtowner, on 09/25/2008, -2/+1Have you never heard of hyperbole?
At any rate, maybe it's not hyperbole. The things the Bush EPA has done could truly be considered crimes against the people. - goon5000, on 09/25/2008, -2/+1How about your scientists using inaccurate and fraudulent data? Even NASA was caught doing that.
- Midtowner, on 09/25/2008, -2/+1@Jayscot,
Is it really "political *****" to say that rules allowing the DOD to decide whether rocket fuel is harmful to your health rather than having the EPA set mcl's and regulate? Quite frankly, to say that allowing perchlorate to be dumped into our water supply is a bad thing. A very bad thing. I think that's descriptive, not normative, and certainly not political *****. I think there should be bipartisan support of making sure the DOD doesn't let highly toxic chemicals which should probably be Category 1 (right up there with nerve gas and plutonium) be dumped into our water.
Perchlorate, btw, was #7 on the list.
We used to not have 'annoying' laws like the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act. Back in those days, we had rivers so polluted that they'd catch on fire (as actually happened on national TV back in [I believe] 1972, when the nation saw the burning Cuyahoga River in all its blazing glory during Monday Night Football prompting the creation of the EPA.
It should be pretty clear to anyone with a vague sense of the history of the environmental movement that industry and its lobbyists do not have the people's best interests in mind when they argue for reduced monitoring or gutting of the provisions of environmental legislation in favor of industry. Most administrations have the good sense not to listen to industry when it argues that pollution is 'good for the economy,' but apparently not Bush. Again, that's probably more descriptive than normative, thus not political *****. - goon5000, on 09/25/2008, -3/+0and using words like "anthropogenic" proves that you're just a parrot.
- pingudownunder, on 09/25/2008, -4/+1Which sancturies are those then? I'm sure they'll make up for drilling all over Alaska for oil.
- bogdon6, on 09/25/2008, -6/+1For those of you who think that Bush has a bad environmental record, could you tell me, by any objective measure, how environmental quality is worse today than at the start of Bush's reign of terror? My bet is that you can't. People like to think the environment is worse today than at the start of 2001, but the data doesn't support that. For example, air quality is better today than at the start of the Bush Administration: http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/
Can anyone give specific examples of how environmental quality today is worse that it was at the start of the Bush Administration or is this all rhetoric and no facts? - DiogenesJr, on 09/25/2008, -8/+2Let's see...
I can't create works of art.
I can't create new technology.
I can't create novel philosophical concepts.
I can't create anything that anyone will ever need...
As a member of the anti-establishment establishment I am obliged to hate Bush, but I don't know enough about politics, economics, foreign policy, or my own country to create a cogent and relevant argument against Bush. But I'm so much smarter than everyone else!
This isn't fair!
I know! I'll become an environmentalist! That way I can make myself relevant even though I have nothing that anybody wants!
Buried. No one cares. The environment is fine. Get over it.
Standard Disclaimer:
I am not a Bush fan boy. At this point in his administration, I'm actually pretty disenfranchised with him. However, if we abandon intellectual honesty, we'll get stuck with an Obama, or worse!
Every bury I get on my comment only makes me stronger. - inactive, on 09/24/2008, -17/+8When ever will the Global Warming herd realize that this is NOT man made. Nothing that we do here will change the fact that Mars and Titan are changing in similar ways. Its a natural occurrence. The smart ones realize that damaging our economy worse than Reines (Obama's boy, Obama Mr #2 in the Fannie Mae cash grab bag) has over at Fannie Mae is crazy. Global Warming is akin to Chicken Little's sky is falling. Let damage our industry, lets damage our way of life just on the delusion of GW. If there were solid proof of it then one might listen, but Al Gore blew it. Al would not even be good in as a carnival trickster.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is