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

One Year After the EPA Removed “Climate Change”

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–15 of 15 posts

Re: One Year After the EPA Removed “Climate Change”

#11

Post by supreme_sublime »

sctb wrote: post #6
supreme_sublime wrote: post #2

Go ahead and think the EPA has done lots of good, I'm sure it has. Go ahead and disagree with what he is doing. To call what Trump is doing "censorship" is completely asinine and not at all what it is.

Hacker News readers really are here to learn, and comments need to be substantive and informative so we can do that. Could you please increase the signal a bit? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Perhaps I should have kept my comment to myself. However I don't see any need to rebut such a ridiculous notion as the Trump administration not prominently using a term, being the comparable to Chinese censorship of Tiananmen Square. Can no one talk about Climate Change in the US? It is a completely ludicrous comparison that should be obvious to anyone on its face.

The author of this article makes no attempt to connect the two, or show how what Trump is doing might lead to Chinese level censorship. This opinion piece is complete tripe. In my opinion, the article should be what is flagged here as there is no kind of intellectual honesty in it. It is simply a political piece with nothing interesting to say except make an outrageous claim that it makes no effort to back up.

Re: One Year After the EPA Removed “Climate Change”

#12

Post by sctb »

supreme_sublime wrote: post #11
sctb wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hacker News readers really are here to learn, and comments need to be substantive and informative so we can do that. Could you please increase the signal a bit? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Perhaps I should have kept my comment to myself. However I don't see any need to rebut such a ridiculous notion as the Trump administration not prominently using a term, being the comparable to Chinese censorship of Tiananmen Square. Can no one talk about Climate Change in the US? It is a completely ludicrous comparison that should be obvious to anyone on its face. The author of this article makes no attempt to conne…

Then the thing to do is to flag the article quietly, as the guidelines ask.

Re: One Year After the EPA Removed “Climate Change”

#13

Post by supreme_sublime »

sctb wrote: post #12
supreme_sublime wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps I should have kept my comment to myself. However I don't see any need to rebut such a ridiculous notion as the Trump administration not prominently using a term, being the comparable to Chinese censorship of Tiananmen Square. Can no one talk about Climate Change in the US? It is a completely ludicrous comparison that should be obvious to anyone on its face. The author of this article makes no attempt to conne…

Then the thing to do is to flag the article quietly, as the guidelines ask.

I lack the ability to flag. I suppose I don't have enough karma.

Re: One Year After the EPA Removed “Climate Change”

#14

Post by slowmovintarget »

indubitable wrote: post #8

It's covered in the index, along with 7 different sub topics: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-topics/z-index#C Alternatively, searching for "climate change" using the EPA site search yields 5,290 surprisingly well presented results. I'd agree that it should be listed as one of the main topics on the front page given its relevance. Trump's appointee doesn't because of his own personal biases. That's pretty much the…

I suppose it could have been worse, the article tiptoed right up to Godwin's Law and said "Hi". It's trying to make a mountain out of dust bunny.

Re: One Year After the EPA Removed “Climate Change”

#15

Post by xbmcuser »

supreme_sublime wrote: post #9
tc7 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think it is? (I'm genuinely curious, certainly open to alternate explanations.)

At best, shaping messaging of policy, at worst, propaganda. He isn't preventing any scientists from publishing anything. Even if he did scrub a term from the entire site personally, that isn't censorship. It isn't illegal to talk about Climate Change.

I agree it's more equilant to the astroturfing done by the Chinese net hoards than censorship. They are changing the message if the it was real censorship this article itself would not be readable
Post reply on HN