Live data from Hacker News

EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

nytimes.com

171–180 of 211 posts

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#171
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.

These agencies exist as an extension of the executive branch of government. Having them run independently with their own policy agendas can be just as dangerous or economically limiting depending on the policy positions of the time. Lucky for us, since we don't live under a regime, these policy changes allow us to refocus our efforts where necessary. I have a biotech friend who says that new grant directions will likely be directed towards infrastructure and defense. What is striking to me is that there is agreement that climate change can be a geopolitical issue multiplier. Effects on agriculture, ability of diseases to spread in a warming climate, mass migrations, loss of clean water, inevitable natural disaster relief expenses increasing. The evidence shows that this sort of thing should be considered a national security issue.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#172
post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, d…

I skimmed the first report, but it left me curious about how scientists measure ocean temp (today, 50 years ago, way before)

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#173
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am more interested in a single paper which really proves either point, or at least presents compelling evidence. Im sure there are a bunch out there, so id like to read some of them.

Note that the natural science doesn't work as "proving the theorems" (mathematics even isn't natural science) but as "establishing the facts." It's like a doing the detective work, collecting "exhibits" and then bringing it to the jury, the jury then can decide which exhibits are valid etc. The jury is the total community of the scientists who devoted their lives to learn as much as possible about the topics they jud…

Im fine with compelling evidence, but I just want to read something that demonstrates a high likylihood that there is in fact global warming and that it is caused by humans.

I figure that there have to be 2-3 solid research papers on the subject.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#175

As awful as this is, it seems completely legal since the executive agencies operate at the mercy of the President. The President has the authority to tell the EPA to stop researching climate science, or to even disband the EPA. Have we never considered this scenario before? Has there ever been an attempt to establish independent agencies, not subject to the whims of the White House? (IIRC, maybe the CIA or the FBI ar…

FBI and CIA are under the executive branch of government and as such conduct/policies are directed by the residing administration. I don't like the idea of having an independent branch of government not subject to the executive branch no matter how terrible that administration is. I take issue with the fact that the executive branch basically writes laws now, which was never the intention and congress is too slow and partisan to pass any laws at all - that and pork barrel.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#176
post #49
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Man made climate change, AKA, the extreme levels of change in temperature, atmospheric composition and acidity levels in the oceans we are experiencing right now. I think splitting hairs over the term is unnecessary. I'm sure there are people who believe earth's climate has always been the same but they are probably very few. The most popular position among climate change deniers, as far as I know, is that this chang…

"Man made climate change, AKA, the extreme levels of change in temperature, atmospheric composition and acidity levels in the oceans we are experiencing right now."

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

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#177

As awful as this is, it seems completely legal since the executive agencies operate at the mercy of the President. The President has the authority to tell the EPA to stop researching climate science, or to even disband the EPA. Have we never considered this scenario before? Has there ever been an attempt to establish independent agencies, not subject to the whims of the White House? (IIRC, maybe the CIA or the FBI ar…

Also, there are laws in place that the EPA is responsible for. So it is highly unlikely (illegal even) to simply disband the EPA for any reason. The only way to do that is through congress by repealing a host of laws that the EPA is effectively responsible for. That is to say, the EPA is responsible for executing on those laws. If they don't, then the government could be sued - which is the purpose of the justice department. That's why we have great organizations like the ACLU and NRDC to make sure those laws get upheld in a court of law.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#178
post #177

As awful as this is, it seems completely legal since the executive agencies operate at the mercy of the President. The President has the authority to tell the EPA to stop researching climate science, or to even disband the EPA. Have we never considered this scenario before? Has there ever been an attempt to establish independent agencies, not subject to the whims of the White House? (IIRC, maybe the CIA or the FBI ar…

Also, there are laws in place that the EPA is responsible for. So it is highly unlikely (illegal even) to simply disband the EPA for any reason. The only way to do that is through congress by repealing a host of laws that the EPA is effectively responsible for. That is to say, the EPA is responsible for executing on those laws. If they don't, then the government could be sued - which is the purpose of the justice dep…

That being said, there are a number of laws that are likely to get axed by the new administration - probably without congress approval given how much the executive branch likes to write laws these days. Clean Power Act, Endangered Species Act..etc. Clean Power Act is likely to go I'm guessing as soon as they can get it

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Republic doesn't mean what you think it does.

You'll have to enlighten me as to my own thoughts!

I suggest you read mynameisvlad's comment, or a dictionary.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#180
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that the natural science doesn't work as "proving the theorems" (mathematics even isn't natural science) but as "establishing the facts." It's like a doing the detective work, collecting "exhibits" and then bringing it to the jury, the jury then can decide which exhibits are valid etc. The jury is the total community of the scientists who devoted their lives to learn as much as possible about the topics they jud…

Im fine with compelling evidence, but I just want to read something that demonstrates a high likylihood that there is in fact global warming and that it is caused by humans. I figure that there have to be 2-3 solid research papers on the subject.

It's simple: CO2 greenhouse effect is proven, the concentration of CO2 is measured and is increasing, the temperature is measured and is increasing. Clever science can figure out even CO2 concentrations and temperatures of the times when nobody measured.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core

The expected rise of CO2 closely matches our fosil fuels consumption.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natu...

Post reply on HN