Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EPA website removes climate science site from public view after two decades

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 57 posts

Re: EPA website removes climate science site from public view after two decades

#31

Post by digitalzombie »

adwhit wrote: post #25

The capitalists who funded the mass propaganda effort to deny the reality of climate change - what is their endgame? Are they simply hoping to maintain the status quo as long as possible and bleed the planet (and public) dry in the meantime? In 50 years time, when things go seriously south for mankind and the history of our era is written, our children and grandchildren are going to regard us with the utmost contempt…

Well I read somewhere Human are more short term thinking than long term thinking.

I think the simple answer to your questions is that they have no end game. They only have one time in mind and that's short term gain.

Re: EPA website removes climate science site from public view after two decades

#32

Post by candiodari »

adwhit wrote: post #25

The capitalists who funded the mass propaganda effort to deny the reality of climate change - what is their endgame? Are they simply hoping to maintain the status quo as long as possible and bleed the planet (and public) dry in the meantime? In 50 years time, when things go seriously south for mankind and the history of our era is written, our children and grandchildren are going to regard us with the utmost contempt…

Disingenuous question, let me explain why. The biggest effect by far resulting from climate change legislation has not been the reduction of CO2 emissions, it has been the migration of manufacturing from developed nations to China.

Unfortunately, developed nations are mostly powered by oil with significant nuclear power added. China isn't. China is powered by coal. Coal produces something like 10x more CO2 per unit of energy (kWh) compared to oil, and about 200x more than nuclear. So climate change accords have systematically worsened CO2 output rather than improving it, while destroying already severely damaged manufacturing industries in the developed world.

With predictable results: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.PC (climate accords were signed in 1992, 2011 and 2015)

The answer to your question is to lower further damage to industries in the US and Europe and thereby will both improve the economics of the situation and actually lower CO2 output.

So your question is about as fair as asking why climate activists keep destroying the world and what their long term plan is.

(e.g. Here are how the people "improving" climate actually act: http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/03/paris-un-global-warming-su... - Claiming that these people actually care and agree that changing our ways to make things better for the environment is ... well, let's just say I see some arguments against that viewpoint)

Re: EPA website removes climate science site from public view after two decades

#33

Post by taurath »

gavinpc wrote: post #11
taurath wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing. It's only collective action that will solve anything, and whatever culture that pops up will get a near equal reaction from the other side. The US is trending to splitting down the middle on everything, just like our political system, a fact which is sadly getting more entrenched every day. Only thing I can think of is find a way to support independent local government officials and slowly kill the bipartisa…

Regarding this "other side." Isn't there an asymmetry here? I mean, aren't the people who see climate change as a DEFCON 1 emergency way more motivated to support environmental causes than the... um people who think it's a hoax are to oppose it? Are there people (not oligarchs) who really oppose environmental causes? Or isn't it just bundled up with all of the GOP's other value propositions? And the constituents just…

It's an issue that needs resources and priorities assigned to it, and in a democracy that means there must be some agreed upon basis for which to act, or the action is not taken. Worse, we switch action for anti-action every election cycle

Re: EPA website removes climate science site from public view after two decades

#34

Post by gumby »

Sunset wrote: post #30
spiderfarmer wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US government denied science before when it came gun control, birth control, abortion and cannabis, so this is just the next step backwards.

Which "science" has been denied about gun control? The question of gun rights is a moral one not scientific.

The morality of guns is affected by their impact. If nobody every died from a gun who would if anyone owned one? But the US congress specifically barred federal collection of data on gun deaths so that no factual conclusions could be drawn.

Re: EPA website removes climate science site from public view after two decades

#35

Post by manyxcxi »

gumby wrote: post #34
Sunset wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which "science" has been denied about gun control? The question of gun rights is a moral one not scientific.

The morality of guns is affected by their impact. If nobody every died from a gun who would if anyone owned one? But the US congress specifically barred federal collection of data on gun deaths so that no factual conclusions could be drawn.

Do you have a citation for that? I've not heard of this and I follow the issue relatively closely. I also find gun death stats pretty widely available and broken down to pretty small geographical areas from various governmental (not necessarily just federal though) and non-governmental organizations.

I do remember having read that a lot of law enforcement agencies don't collect, or collect in a way that makes it hard to tabulate shootings by officers- but a) I don't have a cite for that, it was a while ago, and b) that's also up to individual enforcement agencies, not federal.

Re: EPA website removes climate science site from public view after two decades

#36

Post by gumby »

manyxcxi wrote: post #35
gumby wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The morality of guns is affected by their impact. If nobody every died from a gun who would if anyone owned one? But the US congress specifically barred federal collection of data on gun deaths so that no factual conclusions could be drawn.

Do you have a citation for that? I've not heard of this and I follow the issue relatively closely. I also find gun death stats pretty widely available and broken down to pretty small geographical areas from various governmental (not necessarily just federal though) and non-governmental organizations. I do remember having read that a lot of law enforcement agencies don't collect, or collect in a way that makes it hard…

Umm, it's not a secret or obscure law that bars the CDC from studying gun impact:

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment_(1996)

- The Congressman Who Restricted Gun Violence Research Has Regrets: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jay-dickey-gun-violence-...

- The ban has supposedly been lifted: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/...

- Some more history: http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-violence.as...

- some background: http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-re...

And I love this entry on a blog site (Forbes): Why The Centers For Disease Control Should Not Receive Gun Research Funding: https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/12/why-the-ce...

The reasoning? "There was a very good reason for the gun violence research funding ban. Virtually all of the scores of CDC-funded firearms studies conducted since 1985 had reached conclusions favoring stricter gun control. "

Re: EPA website removes climate science site from public view after two decades

#37

Post by gumby »

gumby wrote: post #34
Sunset wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which "science" has been denied about gun control? The question of gun rights is a moral one not scientific.

The morality of guns is affected by their impact. If nobody every died from a gun who would if anyone owned one? But the US congress specifically barred federal collection of data on gun deaths so that no factual conclusions could be drawn.

Why should this have been downvoted? The post I replied to asked why science matters if the gun issue is moral. I simply stated how science (i.e. reasoning from data) affects moral action, and how the two interact (addressing the other part of the poster's question).

It was not a pro- or anti-gun statement. I fired a handgun just the other day.

Re: EPA website removes climate science site from public view after two decades

#38

Post by extra88 »

manyxcxi wrote: post #35
gumby wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The morality of guns is affected by their impact. If nobody every died from a gun who would if anyone owned one? But the US congress specifically barred federal collection of data on gun deaths so that no factual conclusions could be drawn.

Do you have a citation for that? I've not heard of this and I follow the issue relatively closely. I also find gun death stats pretty widely available and broken down to pretty small geographical areas from various governmental (not necessarily just federal though) and non-governmental organizations. I do remember having read that a lot of law enforcement agencies don't collect, or collect in a way that makes it hard…

The most glaring example is Congress taking away funding from the Centers for Disease Control to study gun violence (I think they still do some reports based on data collected by others but not their own original research). While gun crimes get some attention, particularly mass shootings, accidents and suicides account for most gun deaths and injuries.

Re: EPA website removes climate science site from public view after two decades

#39

Post by tzs »

candiodari wrote: post #32
adwhit wrote: post #25

The capitalists who funded the mass propaganda effort to deny the reality of climate change - what is their endgame? Are they simply hoping to maintain the status quo as long as possible and bleed the planet (and public) dry in the meantime? In 50 years time, when things go seriously south for mankind and the history of our era is written, our children and grandchildren are going to regard us with the utmost contempt…

Disingenuous question, let me explain why. The biggest effect by far resulting from climate change legislation has not been the reduction of CO2 emissions, it has been the migration of manufacturing from developed nations to China. Unfortunately, developed nations are mostly powered by oil with significant nuclear power added. China isn't. China is powered by coal. Coal produces something like 10x more CO2 per unit o…

You are inferring that people who negotiated the Paris agreements don't really care about the environment because the conference center they met at is located at an airport? Seriously?

Re: EPA website removes climate science site from public view after two decades

#40

Post by ForHackernews »

adwhit wrote: post #25

The capitalists who funded the mass propaganda effort to deny the reality of climate change - what is their endgame? Are they simply hoping to maintain the status quo as long as possible and bleed the planet (and public) dry in the meantime? In 50 years time, when things go seriously south for mankind and the history of our era is written, our children and grandchildren are going to regard us with the utmost contempt…

> As for the Kochs and Trumps of the world, what could possibly be a fair reaction to the people who destroyed the planet?

They'll be long dead. There will be no consequences for them.

Post reply on HN