onefixedstar: (Default)
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the EPA must force power plans to protect aquatic species, even if it's expensive. Among those responsible for bringing the law suit are six U.S. states. According to the article:
The appeals court previously rejected arguments that some species are nuisances and require eradication. The court had also dismissed the claim that other species respond to population losses by increasing their reproduction.
Can there be anyone left at the EPA who actually cares about the environment? Surely they've all been driven out by the frustration of having to write statements like those above.

There's something seriously wrong when the court has to tell a government agency to do its damn job.
onefixedstar: (sandmanweber)
According to today's Ottawa Citizen, McGill professor Brian Alters had his proposal to study of how the growing belief in intelligent design in the U.S. is carrying over into Canada rejected by SSHRC in part because he didn't provide sufficient justification that evolution, rather than intelligent design, was correct.

A section of SSHRC's letter quoted in the article:
"The committee found that the candidates were qualified. However, it judged the proposal did not adequately substantiate the premise that the popularizing of Intelligent Design Theory had detrimental effects on Canadian students, teachers, parents and policymakers. Nor did the committee consider that there was adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of Evolution, and not Intelligent Design theory, was correct. It was not convinced, therefore, that research based on these assumptions would yield objective results. In addition, the committee found that the research plans were insufficiently elaborated to allow for an informed evaluation of their merit. In view of its reservations the committee recommended that no award be made."

Now I have no idea whether this proposal merited funding in relation to the many other proposals submitted by other academics (although the outcome certainly suggests that someone ought to study it), but these reasons should absolutely not have appeared in anything coming out of SSHRC.
onefixedstar: (Default)
Creamy centres marred by small bits of plastic: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/corpaffr/recarapp/2006/20060301e.shtml
onefixedstar: (Default)
Did you know Canada was deliberately trying to embarrass the U.S. by offering aid after Hurricane Katrina? Me either. But it must be true...FOX News says so. (Actually, they don't say it; they just ask the Canadian Ambassador if it's true in a way that suggests they believe it is.)

What was particularly embarrassing, apparently, was that the Vancouver Search & Rescue team arrived in St. Bernard's Parish before any of the American teams did.

This is not the first time that FOX News has slanted a story to try to make Canada look bad. Can anyone explain to me why they hate us so much?

Profile

onefixedstar: (Default)
onefixedstar

November 2008

S M T W T F S
      1
234 5678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30      

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 24th, 2017 08:22 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios