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

EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 211 posts

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#191

Post by mynameisvlad »

throwaway91111 wrote: post #160
mynameisvlad wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"?

"Democracy" just means "government by the people". That's why we have different types of democracies, to tell them apart.

If you actually meant a direct democracy, then you should have said it. Don't expect people to be able to read your mind and then get mad and snarky when they don't. We can only interpret what we read, so being specific that you mean a direct democracy when you say the word "democracy" in a political thread is really needed.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#192

Post by jonathankoren »

gozur88 wrote: post #153
jonathankoren wrote: post #69

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.

>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.

This is an ahistorical interpretation.

All the states admitted to the union with one notable exception were territories controlled by the United States, and all were dominated by American citizens. These populations had nowhere else to go. Do you honestly think that Idaho was going to join Canada, or strike out on its own? Of course not.

The idea that people would have a primary allegiance to their state absolutely did not pan out. No one puts South Dakotan at the center of their identity in 2017, but in the late 18th century they certainly did. For evidence look at how many signers and organizers of the revolution failed to bother to show up to the constitutional convention. There was no United States or national identity at the time. At best, it was like claiming to be a citizen of the European Union today.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#193

Post by CuriousSkeptic »

wtvanhest wrote: post #119
CuriousSkeptic wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well there's this meta study of about 12000 papers on the subject http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/0240... which finds that roughly 97% of the published literature support that conclusion.

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.

Perhaps The summaries from IPCC ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Summary_for_Policymaker... ) is more your thing?

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#194

Post by CuriousSkeptic »

wtvanhest wrote: post #119
CuriousSkeptic wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well there's this meta study of about 12000 papers on the subject http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/0240... which finds that roughly 97% of the published literature support that conclusion.

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.

Perhaps The summaries from IPCC ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Summary_for_Policymaker... ) is more your thing?

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#195

Post by gozur88 »

jonathankoren wrote: post #192
gozur88 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

This is an ahistorical interpretation. All the states admitted to the union with one notable exception were territories controlled by the United States, and all were dominated by American citizens. These populations had nowhere else to go. Do you honestly think that Idaho was going to join Canada, or strike out on its own? Of course not. The idea that people would have a primary allegiance to their state absolutely d…

>All the states admitted to the union with one notable exception were territories controlled by the United States, and all were dominated by American citizens. These populations had nowhere else to go. Do you honestly think that Idaho was going to join Canada, or strike out on its own? Of course not.

They could have created a different union, or struck out on their own. The idea they had no other options is, well, ahistorical.

>There was no United States or national identity at the time. At best, it was like claiming to be a citizen of the European Union today.

Which bolsters whose point, yours or mine?

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#196

Post by jonathankoren »

gozur88 wrote: post #195
jonathankoren wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an ahistorical interpretation. All the states admitted to the union with one notable exception were territories controlled by the United States, and all were dominated by American citizens. These populations had nowhere else to go. Do you honestly think that Idaho was going to join Canada, or strike out on its own? Of course not. The idea that people would have a primary allegiance to their state absolutely d…

>All the states admitted to the union with one notable exception were territories controlled by the United States, and all were dominated by American citizens. These populations had nowhere else to go. Do you honestly think that Idaho was going to join Canada, or strike out on its own? Of course not. They could have created a different union, or struck out on their own. The idea they had no other options is, well, ah…

>They could have created a different union, or struck out on their own. The idea they had no other options is, well, ahistorical.

Bullshit. The land is owned and controlled by the United States government. Do you really think a bunch of settlers were ever going to take up arms against government? No. Furthermore there is no evidence that anything else was even considered.

Stop playing games.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#197

Post by specialist »

Joakal wrote: post #59
daenz wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also worth noting that 90 million people who are eligible to vote didn't vote at all.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law

I can't comment on China, NK.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#198

Post by gozur88 »

jonathankoren wrote: post #196
gozur88 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>All the states admitted to the union with one notable exception were territories controlled by the United States, and all were dominated by American citizens. These populations had nowhere else to go. Do you honestly think that Idaho was going to join Canada, or strike out on its own? Of course not. They could have created a different union, or struck out on their own. The idea they had no other options is, well, ah…

>They could have created a different union, or struck out on their own. The idea they had no other options is, well, ahistorical. Bullshit. The land is owned and controlled by the United States government. Do you really think a bunch of settlers were ever going to take up arms against government? No. Furthermore there is no evidence that anything else was even considered. Stop playing games.

What US government? Prior to the constitution there was only the articles of confederation. There was no US.

What happened as new states got added was irrelevant - the constitution already existed by then. It was the smaller states of the original thirteen that had to be convinced, not territories. And yes, they had a number of options, and that's why the more populous states acceded to a bicameral legislature and the electoral college.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#199

Post by snappyTertle »

jaredklewis wrote: post #188
snappyTertle wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think many people disagree that climate change exists. What's debated is what the proper solution is. Throwing public money necessarily diverts private resources. Who is to say gov't has a better solution? Would you really trust a bureaucratic monopoly led by Trump to come up with the best policy for energy? I don't think gov't should be in charge of picking favorites with regulations and grants.

Well depends on your definition of many. Seems like 35% of Americans dont believe climate change is man made. So I don't think this can be framed as just a debate between people wanting public vs private counter measures. There is also still a very large group of people (including many in the Trump administration) that are skeptical of the whole concept. http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eig...

Having a large group of people (including the Trump administration) not "believe" (in this case, beliefs shouldn't matter, we should be looking at facts) climate change is exactly why this should not be a public issue.

Once it's public, people vote for a blanket solution or government officials (by no means environment experts) decide what to do. Private companies should be free to innovate and try multiple different solutions where the best one sticks.

Re: EPA Science Under Scrutiny by Trump Political Staff

#200

Post by [deleted] »

ebfe wrote: post #146
kbrwn wrote: 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.

If you or anybody else cannot imagine succumbing to this sort of blind rejection of scientific studies and would like to experience it firsthand, consider your attitude towards research into the relationship between race and IQ.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN