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

41–50 of 57 posts

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

#41

Post by dplgk »

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…

I don't understand how your argument justifies climate change denial. Since the approach to mitigate climate change doesn't work (in your opinion) then deny it exists?

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

#42

Post by kakarot »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #22
mankash666 wrote: post #12

History repeats itself, in an amplified manner. At least in the era of galileo the general population's prevailing world view was being challenged by new science and evidence. This is backwards, the science has been proven decades ago, countries' policies are being amended to counter the effects. Except in America, and the Middle East. Unlikely bedfellows in science denial.

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

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 (as our governing leaders and peacekeepers do) and further diminishing the power of the citizen to keep his government in check is the step backwards, my friend. We may yet see another revolt in America if things continue to get worse. I don't think we will see anything like that in, say, the UK. And revolt was an inalienable right handed to us by our thoughtful forefathers who knew the government would continue to encroach on its citizens to the point of becoming a threat to them, by its very nature.

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

#43

Post by oliwarner »

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…

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 goals will always manage to produce for less money.

The real problem is we let things get this way. We ignored allowed open trade. We don't fix it by going back to coal, we fix it by forcing China —and its spiritual successors— off it.

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

#44

Post by spiderfarmer »

kakarot wrote: post #42
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.

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. Not a good scenario at all.

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

#45

Post by spiderfarmer »

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.

https://www.sciencealert.com/review-of-130-studies-finds-pow...

You can have gun rights and gun control you know..

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

#46

Post by rdiddly »

tzs wrote: post #39
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…

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?

The Daily Caller article gets a little distracted with its hissy-fit about luxury, and neglects to state the actual problem, which is that air travel is the most energy- and CO2-intensive travel method per person-mile. Obviously moreso if you're alone on your own private jet, but it's still the worst mode, even when you're sandwiched in on a chock-full commercial flight. It's the dirty secret of these climate conferences. The criticism of the Paris meeting is valid on that basis.

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

#48

Post by Sunset »

gumby wrote: post #37
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.

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.

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

#49

Post by allemagne »

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…

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.

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

#50

Post by narrowrail »

greenyoda wrote: post #26
narrowrail wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to nitpick, but the senate is 6 years (and the senate is part of the congress).

But about a third of the Senate is up for election every two years[1], so technically the original statement was correct. The voters of the states who elect senators in a particular year may have the opportunity to change which party has a majority in the Senate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate#Term

The original point being made was about turnover and being able to correct for bad choices, and no voter (unless they move) gets to vote for the same senate seat every 2 years.
Post reply on HN