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

51–57 of 57 posts

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

#51

Post by gumby »

Sunset wrote: post #48
gumby wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There isn't a hypothetical set of statistics you can imagine that would change my moral stance on gun rights and self defense one way or the other.

Interesting. Is that true for all topics, or just guns?

I ask because there are plenty of other such cases. We decide how much to spend on freeway construction and maintenance vs lives saved. We study the dangers, additivity etc of smoking and decide it's better to place some restrictions on people's presumed freedom of choice in order to, ironically, improve their in practice freedom of choice. We restrict the absoluteness of some peoples' freedom of association to improve everyone's freedom of association, using data to determine where this might be appropriate and how much. Etc etc.

What I have said is true regardless if you think the right to bear arms is absolute or if you think it's absolutely abhorrent, much less if your position is in between. Do you believe that science has no bearing on morality of any kind, or only on the topic of guns?

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

#52

Post by yellowapple »

Qwertious wrote: post #27
hplust wrote: post #2

What actions can I take as a US citizen to fight this level of ignorance? I feel like calling or emailing my representative will yield no results. Does anyone have some ideas on what can be done by the average Bob?

When the next election comes up, vote for whichever candidate is willing to ditch FTPTP and make third-party candidates mathematically viable. Even if the only candidate who does so is Trump (as long as you expect him to keep that particular promise).

Considering that such a change would likely involve a constitutional amendment, the correct target for such voting would be the legislature (both state and federal).

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

#53

Post by tnzn »

digitalzombie wrote: post #31
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.

That's the case when you're in real time situation and stuff like that. When you're actually thinking through a whole politics, you should be able to think past that.

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

#54

Post by tnzn »

gumby wrote: post #51
Sunset wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There isn't a hypothetical set of statistics you can imagine that would change my moral stance on gun rights and self defense one way or the other.

Interesting. Is that true for all topics, or just guns? I ask because there are plenty of other such cases. We decide how much to spend on freeway construction and maintenance vs lives saved. We study the dangers, additivity etc of smoking and decide it's better to place some restrictions on people's presumed freedom of choice in order to, ironically, improve their in practice freedom of choice. We restrict the absol…

You're probably talking to some libertarian who believes freedom is "doing whatever the fuck I think is best for myself"

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

#55

Post by candiodari »

oliwarner wrote: post #43
candiodari wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Paying your people jack, pegging your currency, ignoring other environmental concerns (re mining and processing minerals), nationalising out competition in infrastructure that would have otherwise put the price up... But no, it's probably just coal's fault. Edit: I'm not saying that it's not a factor but it's one in a vast array. A country that can unnaturally and immorally suppress its workers and environmental goal…

I get your criticism of China, but it was NOT China making the decision to for climate regulation on western firms but not on Chinese firms.

That honor falls on the climate conferences and our "scientific policy stance".

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

#56

Post by candiodari »

allemagne wrote: post #49
candiodari wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So, the industrialists in Western nations are both keeping Western industry from collapsing to China and actually reducing overall CO2 emissions? That's very heroic of them. Seems pretty upsetting that the masses are too ignorant to understand this.

If you're saying that that's not their intention, you're probably right. But there's bad, and then there's worse.

The masses are too ignorant to understand this ? Well, yes. The masses, of course, never try to understand anything at all.

But therefore my question : what will climate activists do when their policies have destroyed the planet (while "trying to save the planet" - heh) ? Will they go live somewhere else ?

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

#57

Post by kakarot »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #44
kakarot wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are a lot of different topics that you are attempting to wedge into the same point of view. Even though it should be allowed, abortion is an issue of social morality. So is gun control. Yes, you can draw statistics about these things but I'd be hesitant to call it science and I would be even more hesitant to say that protecting our rights to own weapons is a step backwards. Denying us the freedom to bear arms (…

You don't need guns to revolt. You need motivation, organization and persistence. Of all likely scenarios, the one where the people defeat the government because of the guns in their nightstands seems the most unlikely. A coordinated strike for several days would be much more effective. A revolt with guns will most likely result in seperate states of America, because gun bearing parties will try to fill up the vacuum…

[citation needed]
Post reply on HN