It's faith-based science. Surely you didn't expect anything else? It's not as if the rate of species loss has accellerated or anything. (Ahem.)

well,
wouldn't that mean
that there are far fewer species
which he could be adding to the list?

as an aside,
there is nothing within the construct of Christianity
which makes it OK to trample the earth
into a barren dust bowl.

don't blame faith
for what can be more easily attached
to simple greed.

jhimm - I definitely think that greed is the biggest factor into why he doesn't give a shit about the environment. I also think that he's anti-science and much of his anti-science views come from his fundamentalist christian views, which in turn influences his environmental policy.

Did he add Republican congressmen to the list?

mess - HAHAHAHA. Nice.

i dunno.
this whole fundamentalism == anti-science thing
is either very new to fundamentalism
or it's a product of the MSM.
i grew up fundamentalist
and science was extremely important in my home
and in the homes of all my friends.

i know i can't use my own experience
to counter-act an entire religion's views
one way or the other,
but i think that the evolution in schools debate
has blown the issue way out of reality.

i could be wrong,
of course.
but that would mean things have changed
in some fairly fundamental (ha ha) ways
in terms of how those kinds of christians
are constructing their faith and defining it.

j(h)i(m)m:

My point about faith-based science nothing to do with the environmental remit of Christianity, per se, and everything to do with the Bush administration pattern of making its scientific appointments based on doctrinal purity rather than scientific competence. As opposed to reality-based science, of which the Bushies explicitly do not approve.

then i recommend
if you want people to understand you
when you communicate your ideas
that you don't use MSM buzz words
which mean something else entirely
from what it is you're trying to say.

then we don't have to have this protracted chat.