Live data from Hacker News

EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

nytimes.com

151–160 of 211 posts

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#151
post #13

It feels like such a strange time to be alive. Even if you disagree with the concept of man-made climate change the distortion of scientific studies seems like something that everybody can agree is wrong. So much of science is funded by govt grants. The idea that everything must conform to the view of the current administration or it is not worth funding seems dangerous and economically limiting.

I believe the Republican skepticism of climate change is not born from disagreement but from the monetary influence of businesses who would be adversely affected from regulation and change.

Sleeping while out beds are burning indeed.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#152
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also worth noting the first past the post system encourages duopolistic government (Almost China and NK's monopolistic government ;) ) People vote against their sincere choice by voting for one of the two most popular candidates instead. Some other systems: http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_Vote/Voting_HOR.htm http://www.elections.org.nz/voting-system/mmp-voting-system

Joke or not, the comparison to China or North Korea is awful, and not at all close to accurate. For example, when the BBC went to report on an independent candidate in China, plainclothes policemen blocked them from entering the building[0]. North Korea is at least an order of magnitude worse off. [0] http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-38005603

I was pointing out that China and North Korea are monopolistic. Of course they don't allow more than one party with the system they set up.

Look at USA, it's duopolistic due to the system set up. There's only republicans and democrats.

What's funny is that China (Don't know about NK) brags that anyone can run for government but people only vote for one party. Just like USA brags that anyone can run for government but it ends up becoming republican/democrat.

Do you see the monopolistic/duopolistic point I was making?

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The electoral college is not the problem. If we remove that, than states that lose representation they were promised when they joined should have the right to secede.

The electoral college is antiquated and premised on an idea that didn't pan out. Specifically that people would have a primary allegiance to their state and not the federation. This was true since World War I at the latest, and Reconstruction at the earliest. Quite frankly it's asinine that my town has more population and less representation than 6 states.

>The electoral college is antiquated and premised on an idea that didn't pan out.

It absolutely panned out. Smaller states joined a union they would not otherwise have joined. To change the system requires 3/4ths of the states to sign on, too, so it's not going to change.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#154
post #23
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What exactly is he afraid that'll happen? [1] Why all of the resistance? He is afraid of being proved wrong. It's a very common problem with climate change deniers. Facts and figures keep piling up but they always grasp any possible alternative explanation. The longer they sustain their position, the fooler the look if they backtrack, so they tend to become more and more entrenched in their opinions. Trump just hap…

When you say he denies climate change, are you referring to climate change itself, or man made climate change? I know man made climate change deniers who fully believe in climate change. But the term "climate change denier" gets thrown around so loosely (sometimes I wonder if that's intentional), that I don't know what people are actually referring to.

"Climate change denial" is not a coherent platform. There may be some who hold logically consistent views (whether they are real or not), but they are not necessarily consistent with each other, and in any case the majority of people don't care.

As long as one can say that mankind should not take any action to avert climate change, most "climate deniers" are happy, and whether the myriad of supporting arguments contradict each other is not their concern.

For example, what's Trump's opinion on whether the Earth is warming or not? Does he even care?

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#155
post #3

All of these changes that Trump is making in his first week are making me wonder: what's the population limit, really, for a well functioning democracy? I'm no historian, but didn't the United States go around saying how great democracy is? I don't know about you, but to me it definitely feels like it doesn't work quite as intended. As for the article at hand, all I can offer is this" Trump's blatant distrust for cli…

I'm just curious, what are the absolute best articles/papers that prove the following: 1) Climate change (meaning the planet is warming). 2) Climate change is man made and causing the planet to warm.

All the scientists of the world organized the production of the reports together since 1990, supported by almost all governments of the world, including those who would otherwise benefit from bigger fossil fuel use. The conclusion is: human-made climate change, and if nothing is done, the effects are dire.

Note: there was no scientific valid input that would disprove the human-caused climate change, and believe me, different countries would push hard had they been.

The first report was produced 1990, the fifth, updated 2014, here it is the full "synthesis" part of the report, PDF, 14 MB:

http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_f...

A little longer explanation then mine in Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Cli...

Additionally, it is proved, by looking at the yearly reports, year after year, that Exxon finances the "deniers." Just to give you the idea how you can possibly doubt: when there's a TV show to be made, there's one real scientist, to represent all the scientists of the world, and on another side a paid pre-selected person to pose as the "alternative view."

So the public sees "oh, it's 50:50." It's not, it's rather more like 99.9:0.1. You can always find some extremists, even among the scientists. But even those found "denying" are typically from some other branch of science, effectively out of their range of expertise.

The another reason for what appears to be 50:50 is that the politicians of a whole big US party, almost without the exception, identify themselves with the financiers and "dance the denial."

The big interested financiers can't disprove it, but they can produce enough confusion to prevent some political decisions to occur, and that is good enough for them. Relatively little money (for them) gives them a lot. That the whole planet is affected, they don't care.

---

Edit: answer to your "ocean temperatures":

Now, it's really measured. For the past, a lot of work:

http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/topics/proxies/paleocli...

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#156
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The electoral college is antiquated and premised on an idea that didn't pan out. Specifically that people would have a primary allegiance to their state and not the federation. This was true since World War I at the latest, and Reconstruction at the earliest. Quite frankly it's asinine that my town has more population and less representation than 6 states.

As a non-American, I have to ask why the large, liberal states don't embrace States' Rights? I know that historically, "States' Rights" has been a codeword for racism, but times change. Why don't liberal states push for a smaller federal government, and more power for their own governments? Mitt Romney introduced a law to that became a blueprint for Obamacare, when he was governor of Massachusetts..if Trump were to a…

American here, and I completely agree. I would love for my state to legalize marijuana and not be beholden to the whims of the current president (since it's still illegal at the federal level). Another thing I'd like to try would be a basic income guarantee with corresponding removal of minimum wage (but again, there's a federal minimum wage).

> Similarly, if Trump appoints a conservative who wants Roe v Wade overturned, states that want to maintain abortion could do so, right?

Yeah, but a lot of people aren't content with that. Some people want to force it to be legal everywhere, even in states that wouldn't otherwise want it.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The electoral college is not the problem. If we remove that, than states that lose representation they were promised when they joined should have the right to secede.

This is a bad thing how? Serious question. The US would be a much happier and healthier place if it were more like the EU.

Where states are leaving or threatening to leave, and where the bureaucracies seem completely unconnected with the voters? I think not.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#158
post #134
post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Almost China and NK's monopolistic government That's one of the most perniciously false equivalence I've seen in a while, and that's saying something. The US has elected congressmen, elected senators, elected governors and an elected president. Even the top two presidential candidates are chosen from a wide field in primary elections. Portraying that as a stark choice between only two options and saying it's practi…

You do realise that in USA, people mostly vote for republicans or democrats despite some hating them? Rest of world have multi-party governments. Many more choices. So much for an example that puts people on defensive instead of raising awareness of how distorted the electoral system in USA is.

And the US has primaries. Last year there were 17 Republicans all trying to win their party's nomination in a series of open votes; out of those, the eventual winner, Donald Trump, was perhaps the candidate least liked by the party establishment.

If anything, the problem was too many candidates, combined with a first-past-the-post system. The majority of primary voters disliked Trump, but were split between several preferred candidates (who I group because they were far more similar to each other than to Trump). Trump got a certain segment of the vote all to himself.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#159
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think most, when referring to "climate change denier" mean to say "anthropogenic climate change denier". Most people who are "climate change denier"s in the above sense do actually believe in climate change in general just not the fact that we have influenced it.

You'd be surprised the amount of people who very seriously say "Global warming isn't real! There's snow outside!". This is why there's been a push towards the "climate change" wording in the first place.

>You'd be surprised the amount of people who very seriously say "Global warming isn't real! There's snow outside!".

That's because, in a mistaken campaign to get people motivated, AGW activists say "See how hot it is today? Global warming is the reason!" Remember how the northern ice cap was supposed to be gone by 2013? Polar bears extinct?

If you don't want people on the other side to make arguments based on today's weather, you have to call out the people doing it on your side.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Err, how so? There is no direct vote on any governance; certainly not at the federal level.

So it's not a direct democracy but is still a democracy, specifically a representative democracy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy "Republic" is just a term to refer to a nation that is ruled without a monarch: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/republic Therefore, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Ok, but I wasn't referring to democracy as a general concept, because that's useless. Why not just say "people vote"?
Post reply on HN