Bush to relax protected species rules

I am so sick of you liberals whining and complaining about Bush. You were quiet whe Clinton was getting a blow job in our nations capital and getting disbarred in his home state. I'm looking forward to November. Osama Obama will be a thing of the past!

How does a Democrat getting a blowjob compare to horribly botched policy? In what Bizarro world does that make sense?

Mark way to start a flame war.

Anyway, I don't think conservation and protecting the environment is solely a liberal issue. Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, was the first great conservationist president. Conservation is also a moral issue to many religious right folks.

I agree that this issue is not purely a partisan issue. We need to remember that we are all leaving this world to our children and our children's children. That is what I don't understand. Bush has daughters and will soon have grandchildren. Does his "favors" outweigh their future? I thought as president that the number one job was to care and love your country. What happened???

Clinton getting a blow job didn't jeapordize the environment and endangered species. It wasn't any of our business and wasted a lot of taxpayers money. This, however, has a direct impact on a lot of different levels. I did research in Alaska and this will severely effect salmon runs, which will severely effect the Alaskan economy, which will severely effect thousands of American's lives. And that's just one example.

This isn't about liberals, conservatives, Republicans, or Democrats. This is about the American people, American land, and species of animals that live here too. Let's hope that whomever becomes President has the tact to reverse Bush's decision. But let's not assume he will. American citizens need to protest, and they need to protest now. Too much can go wrong if we wait.

The article was so skewed. There are no animals being threatened. This simply protects from using the endangered species act for something it was never intended to do. RE: the polar bears, this winter they had more square miles of ice to live on then ever in recorded history. And the polar bears were never endangered. There are just as many as ever. This change prohibits the use of the word "endangered" to speculate about future problems that might happen. Global temperature variations are natural. There is no proof that "greenhouse gases" causes it. It's a theory that the environmentalists have promoted to further their control agenda. It's all about the money and who gets it. The media skews the story to influence those that don't think for themselves. Just like whining about the $ made by the oil companies. They make between 5 and 7 % on their investment. Who among you would not demand at least that for your investments?

Firstly, I seriously doubt that the oil companies have only been getting a 5 or 7% return on their investments. No one would be complaining nor would the oil CEOs have been asked to testify and explain their outrageous profits before Congress. I'm not quite sure where it is that you're getting your erroneous information regarding the danger that global warming poses to various species. As a research scientist, I've done enough reading and research to know that there's overwhelming evidence out there to show that global warming and the changes that have occurred to various parts of the earth as a result of global warming have indeed put many species on our planet in danger of extinction. I suggest you do some serious reading and then perhaps you can have an opinion. Until then, please keep your thoughts to yourself. I'm certain that no one with half a brain is interested in what you've got to say.

The only reason they are doing this is to allow more logging and distruction of the environment. Bush doesn't care. This administration has done enough damage, why don't they take a vacation for a few months.

Mark - Clinton's behavior didn't harm the country, just his marriage, which is none of your business. It will take us 50 years to recover from GWB.

I can't wait till Jan. 09 also, so we can start that recover, with Pres. Obama.

People are sick and tired of the neocons and GWB.

And you believe this is true huh. Well this act has worked great for 35 years and stopped those who do not care about anything in their way. They buy republicans for pennies who do not even look at what they are doing
The changes represent the biggest overhaul of the Endangered Species Act since 1988. They would accomplish through regulations what conservative Republicans have been unable to achieve in Congress: ending some environmental reviews that developers and other federal agencies blame for delays and cost increases on many projects.
Same old trick Big business does not like a regulation pay off the boolicking republicans and force the issue. I doubt Bush even knows what this act is

Where you come up with that BS?? Was that info put out by Exxon?? It seems that all the scientists ,except the ones that work for the white house of course, are saying just the opposite. I have seen satellite photos of almost every place that contains glaciers, Greenland etc., and they have gotten a lot smaller then they were 15, 10 or even 3 years ago. Unless all those photos were doctored and there is a huge conspiracy to lie about Global Warming that involved almost every scientist in the world, you are just dead wrong. But hey if you say so then it must be true, depsite the overwhelming poof and facts that show the opposite.

so let me get this straight the environmentalist are the bad guys trying to control the situation to meet their agenda hmmm lets see on one hand we have bush lining his pockets with oil money further cripling the contry as we loose our homes and spend what little money he hasnt taken from us on huge gas bills and food. On the other hand we have the environmentalists who would like to see us use less oil find alternative fuel sorces not use up all the resources we have so that our future generations can have more than a toxic waste land to live in. You are so right thoes stupid enviromentalist if we let them get away with saving our planet what would we have to complain about while we drove our solar cars breath clean air, take our children to see nature instead of watching it on tv cause it doesnt exist near us. I mean being self relient, and telling opec to take a hike while we spend our money on the things that would make us happy and be able to take care of our families who would want such an awful life I for one must agree lets all give our money our homes and our planet to bush and others like him cause as they are cashing the checks and living off our backs I'm sure they are doing it for our own good. Hey I've always wondered what it would be like to live in a landfill and drink poluted water I'm sure evolution will make us more resilant to the bacteria and plague that will surely follow a world with out environmental concerns. Polution will be our friend no more pesky sunsets bluring our vision of smog no more clear blue oceans taking up space no more stupid mountains or animals to get in the way of development let the coal companies destroy the mountain making the ground unstable let them kill the animals and destroy the food chain. I hear the starving look is in so we should all be happier once we are dying from polution and starvation. Way to go bush!

a complete article about Greenland. Please read and if any enviromental peps need some help with this text let me know and I will dumb it down for you..

"Greenland is melting! Greenland is melting!" cried Chicken Little in a spate of press stories based on two articles in Science magazine. Apparently, C.L. hasn't yet learned to read, count, or get on the Internet: three elementary skills that would have replaced his faulty chickenvision with A-plus accuracy.

The first paper is by veteran glaciologist William Krabill, whose earlier laser-based studies of the West Greenland Ice Sheet—by far the largest chunk of land-ice in the Northern Hemisphere—showed an actual thickening of up to seven feet in the 1980s. That fact may seem counterintuitive to someone like C.L., but people who understand global warming suggest Greenland's ice indeed might thicken, especially if the warming occurs mostly in winter. Warming the air from its current -50°F to, say, -40°F, is likely to increase snowfall, since "warmer" air is generally moister and precipitates more water.

In his latest study, Krabill and nine coauthors examine the very brief period 1994-1999. In combination with another study published last year, they find the largest mass--the ice that's higher than 6,500 feet above sea level--is "rising" at the rate of 0.2 ± 0.2 inches per year. But the land is rising, too--at about 0.15 inches per year. That leaves, in Krabill's estimation, +0.04 ± 0.2 inches per year for this massive ice cap, which encompasses the vast majority of Greenland. In the far northern island's coastal regions, ice retreat predominates over about 70 percent of the area studied.

In a companion paper in the same issue of Science, Thomas and colleagues write that "The [whole] region has been in balance, but with thickening of 21 centimeters per year [8.3 inches] in the southwest and thinning of 30 centimeters per year [11.8 inches] in the southeast."

C.L.'s squawking appears to have been syndicated: We can't count the number of press reports blaming the situation on global warming. Alas, his inability to search the Internet or even read a graph precluded his answering this obvious question: How much has it warmed in southeastern Greenland?

C.L. can't answer, but we can. We hereby present the best (longest-running and without gap) temperature record from southeastern Greenland, from Angmagssalik (latitude 65.6°N, longitude 37.6°W, or about 2,700 miles northeast of Washington, DC). For 70 years now, a cooling trend has persisted.

What about for Nuuk in southwestern Greenland (64.2°N, 51.8°W, a mere 2,200 miles from DC)? The ice in that region is thickening, and cooling has continued for 70 years also. It seems the ice either accretes or ablates pretty much independent of temperature.

Yet Krabill and colleagues attempted to relate the melt in the southeast to the temperatures of 1994-1999, the period we have circled in the Angmagssalik record. They compared temperature anomalies for those years with the average temperature beginning in 1979.

For what it's worth, the annual average temperature at Angmagssalik, based upon the entire 105-year record, is around -1.28ºC. The average 1994-1999 temperature of about -1.08ºC is pretty close to normal. It's about one degree lower than the 1930-1950 temperatures (before human activity changed the greenhouse effect very much). But the period 1979-1999, which Krabill used for averaging, is actually a little colder than the record's last five years, so the 1994-1999 temperatures appear "warm." Just throw out the first 85 years of this excellent temperature history to come to that false conclusion!

So, under the simplified logic that warmer means more melting, Krabill then calculated the temperature change must have been responsible for 0.4 inches of the total sea level rise of the 20th century that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) noted in its 1996 report.

Huh? Did someone say 1996? But Krabill's study covers 1994 through 1999, and the melting is taking place where it is has been cooling for three-quarters of a century! C.L. was too chickenheaded to think this through, but here's how Krabill and company worked their way around this slight nunatak:

Greenland temperature records from 1900-95 show highest summer temperatures in the 1930s, followed by a steady decline until the early 1970s and a slow increase since. The 1980s and 1990s were about half a degree colder than the 96-year mean. Consequently, if present-day thinning is attributable to warmer temperatures, thinning must have been even higher earlier this century.

How interesting. So the "natural" (pre-greenhouse) rate of melting in southern Greenland was higher than it is today. And overall, the largest portion of the ice is at best neutral, as Thomas's companion article makes clear: "On average, the region has been in balance" in recent decades.

What all of that means is that Greenland will have to show a pretty massive melt rate to even equal how much water it lost before there was a CO2-producing car in every U.S. garage. And in any event, don't look for it to melt away very fast.

No doubt with Chicken Little's help, Reuters reported: "If all of the ice sheet melted, it would raise world sea level by seven yards."

"This thinning," Krabill told Reuters, "is a clear indication the global climate is warming up." That's a bit of a stretch. As the graph shows, during the time the ice is growing and in the places where it is receding, it has been cooling for seven decades!

So how long do we have left to live? If the ice cap lost 0.15 inches per year--the lowest limit given in Krabill's broad range--it would take about 800,000 years to melt. Between then and now, if history is any guide, we're likely to experience two or three major ice ages, and we will have run out of fossil fuels about 798,000 years before then.

Sorry, looks like Greenland's here to stay!

Now, please someone explain why we have had a cooling trend for the last 9 years and the C02 level has increased. So to me...one has nothing to do with the other...

now back to the article at hand and lets discuss the issue of endangered animals...what a joke.

hyonlyph

I agree with a lot of what you said there, but the opportunity remains for corporations and developers to use this lax in regulation to "self-monitor" their impacts on the environment. Corporations and developers inability and non-desire to self-monitor themselves led to these regulations in the first place. Regardless of polar bears and globabl warming theories, this is a very bad idea.

hmm--- perhaps Richard Nixon was a much better President than people give him credit for. There was a huge debate in my hometown about whether individuals could put up pictures of candidates for presidency in city-owned buildings during the 2004 election. In protest, the coffee stand in Central Market put up a photo of Richard Nixon-- I asked them why and they said "who's worse than Richard Nixon?" Hmm-- I can think of someone.

Richard Nixon was by far my favorite president... here's why:

- Created the Environmental Protection Agency
- Created the Endangered Species List
- Created Earth Day
- Signed the Clean Air Act
- Signed the National Environmental Policy Act

And Nixon's appointed Russell Train had something to say about Bush a few years ago...

Russell Train is so disappointed in President Bush's environmental record that the staunch Republican, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's second leader 30 years ago, is casting his vote in November for Democrat John Kerry.

Train, 84, EPA administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford from 1973 to 77, was in Madison Tuesday in support of Environment2004, an organization trying to end what it calls the anti-environmental agenda of the Bush administration.

Hmm-- if only the rest of America saw it coming.

I think everything probably floors you, when you are not snorting.

The woods are gone....

Hurry up Jan. 09.. If we elect the right person that is

Fool me once .........

yeah, apparently everyone liked the first four years of Bush, because they all voted for him again. they must like it. there were all these crappy little cars in the parking lot with Bush stickers on them. my how brainwashed, the narrow minded republican idiots are.

One always hopes however, that people around him can encourage him to see beyond his own selfishness

C'mon now, look who surrounds him.

One who surrounds himself with fools becomes one. Just look at Iraq. He wanted an opinion and got it so everybody who disagreed with Cheney got fired or forced into retirement then they appointed the general who agreed with him

Dont tell me you view that as an attribute.

recent, and I mean 2008, evidence that C02 is related to warming...

and make it scientific, not so green website spouting the same facts from 1999.

I will wait.

"whats best for the people isnt always best for the animals" hmmmm I can only imagine you have had the benefit of the same stupidity that has been bestowed on our moron of a president. We rely on animals you idiot, you cant grow crops (that would be food) with out polination and yet the honey bees who play a large roll in polination are rapidly declining in numbers and soon this will have an affect on humans crops (again food for you dim wits) how does it not seem like a good idea to protect the wild life? Its called a food chain every plant and animal has an effect no matter how small or large on humans we dont respect them they dont help us and we die try opening a book before you open your mouth.
I agree with Aaron, what is wrong with this generation its called impeachment, we tried to impeach a president for having "relations" with an intern but sit back and do nothing when a complete moron with self serving agendas strips our land of resources throws our econmy into a recession, we are loosing our homes, our cars and we cant afford to eat but we let bush stay in office? seriously what is wrong with this nation I for one would happily deal with a president who was getting some action on the side than a president that was killing my family but then again thats why I never voted for Bush in the first place. Thanks Republicans for destroying our nation with your idot moron leader. Cash thoes checks and sleep tight cause one day all the people you have steped on wont have any money left to give you and when your old and need care guess whoes gonna get all your money? the little people the ones who are gonna charge ya 1000.00 an hr to change your diaper so live it up fat cats cause it wont last.

Jesus Christ... I'm not even sure if you're serious; I find it hard to believe anyone is that stupid. What's good for big corporations is very rarely good for people. You know what is good for people, and all other living creatures, though? Biodiversity.

Chicken and cows are not on the endangered list at present what are you reading

azchic...

what..honey bees pollinate the corn and wheat we grow...I thought the farmers did that. well hell, lets kill the farmers then.

Also we can pollinate our crops that bees do for us.

Also, tell us why the bees are dying. I will give you a hint...we don't know...so how do we protect them if we don't know what is killing them.

So every animal is important to our existent. Then explain why we are here.. species go extinct every year yet we keep on keeping on. That is called evolution.

Bees play a vital role in the production of a majority of the food humans eat. We don't know what is causing the dwindling bee population but it is essential for our own protection to assure that we don't add to the loss of bees. We may not know what's killing them off at the current rate, but scientists may know what ways we do kill them off, and if regulations aren't in place to assure we don't do so than we will see a large food shortage across the world.

The problem with chalking it up to evolution is that, currently, we have not "evolved" to a level where we don't need bee production. You don't have to understand the way bees and other environmental components effect our daily living, but if you don't, then you shouldn't be allowed to have a say. And developers and corporations are monetary based organizations with monetary concerns, not environmental. They should not be allowed to decide whether they'll make a negative impact. The President should not be allowed to make a sole decision of this magnitude.

As you said Laura, " Mother Nature takes care of her own." Because she sure is not getting any help from Bush or developers, (Maybe present company not included) who, through their actions have caused a decline of 75% of the Salmon population in the Northwest. Just a little statistic I'm sure you happend to overlook when you were telling us all how well they recover from a natural disaster. Unfortunately they do not recover quite as well from determined, calculated mismanagement of their habitat by developers.

I agree - another strike for defenseless animals

shame shame shame on humans

animals - 0
humans - 300,000,000,000,000

LCot: Thank you - beautifully said. As guardians of our natural enviornment, we have a grave responsibilty to protect and maintain our resources and its inhabitants. I intensely dislike the actions of those who go in a rape and plunder our environment with little thought or regard and concessions for those who have to live and survive therein. The bottom line ends up being $$$$$$$$. I hate to see what our environment and natural resources will look like in 2, 3, or 4 generations from now. Even in my generation, things have changed and deteriorated significantly at the hand of mankind. Hmmmm, manKIND. Seems a contradiction there.

I don't know who appointed you as guardian of anything. I would like another vote. What a typical liberal comment. The poor animals! The wicked, wicked people! The very animals you so desperately want to save would eat your idiotic ass in a heartbeat. Why don't you go pet some polar bears? I hear that great white sharks may be endangered also. I know they would appreciate a little comforting pat on the head. I am sure your compact florescent lights are burning brightly as you type your caring reply on your wind and solar powered computer. What kind of car are you driving to work tomorrow? I would bet it runs on GAS. People who live in glass environments should not throw stones at Bush. They should blame the Democrat congress for not allowing us to drill here. Who do you think will get the oil in a more environmentally friendly way Exxon, or the Chinese or Russians? And do you actually think that when all is said and done, that the oil will not be taken? When the need arises, the Democrats will do what is politically expediant.

why do we have to take the oil at all? why cant we be what we claim to be, the smartest most advanced nation on this earth and come up with alternative resources? Please tell me what is so wrong with being a liberal or a environmentalist huh? at least if the environmentalists are wrong you will have better technology and more trees which in turn would create more jobs to cut down the extra trees if we are wrong and have to many. Bush's plan basicly wipes out our environment and brings death plague crime and destruction. Lets think about this for a moment when you are dead because their are no trees to help purify the poluted air from all your highways and gas powered cars what good will have done you to bash environmentalists. At least if I'm wrong you will have a job cleaning up my mistake so if you dont mind I'm gonna go plant a tree hey maybe someday some nonenvironmentalist can say they were right we have to much clean air to many species and to many trees as he cuts it down to build his kid a tree house thanks to my "agenda"
Keep your oil, keep your polution, keep your garbage protect the animals environment and the smart people who are trying to perserve it if you like your oil and roads and garbage so much feel free to live in it but count me out.

mmm... I love Salmon.

Let me ask you a question William. How long can you tread water?

Read closely dear friend, the people just got F----d by your boy and his people, the developers.
Polar bears today and people tomorrow.
Lets just hope the enviromentalists are still around when the developers come for Yosemiti, Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, your property.

William- People have more than enough land than they know what to do with. Why do we let our cities crumble and turn our backs to build the suburbs farther and farther out? We need to revitalize the messes we have already made instead of creating new messes while destroying the world around us.

hey willie boy - how will the animals still be protected? Now the greedy developers can just chop up the animals homes willile nillie

when will they ever learn - when it is too late for most species... which is now

Spoken like a true New Yorker!!! Make it all concrete, right????

William, spoken like a true New Yorker!!! Hell, make it all concrete, right??? Who needs trees anyway???
Want to see how it works when you take restrictions away look at Beijing!!!

I love New York. It is the greatest city in the world...I guess that is just an opinion based on my travels, but so far so good....

'greedy developers'...you guys are funny. I wonder where you live? if a 'greedy developer' was involved.. wonder where you work...I wonder if you had to live in the wild, if you could do it...

lol..I love you guys...you make my day.

we will anyway....so why try to pro long the necessary.

Maybe we should stop all development right now. screw new roads, buildings, parks, commerce...
man is the cause of all ills...we should all just die...

wow...