EPA website removes climate science site from public view after two decades | Hacker News Reader

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

washingtonpost.com

88 pointsfmihaila50 comments

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? A bloody uprising followed by a complete overthrow of the system? Perhaps the ruling class think that by that point they will have enough systems of control in place to keep themselves comfortable as civilization collapses around them, a la Children Of Men.

I'm not sure the gravity of the evil has quite sunk in yet. We are witnessing the worst, most venal, most corrupt behavior that mankind has ever partaken. It is quite spectacular.

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.

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)

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.

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?

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.

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".

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 ?

> 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.

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.

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.

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. "

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.

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

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

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.

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.

[citation needed]

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?

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 bipartisan system.

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 include it because tribalism?

edit: my point is that it's us versus the oligarchs. This is not something like guns or abortion or hell even fiscal policy where individuals are going to dig in their heels. This issue is less partisan in that respect. I don't think it's a big deal to the right beyond being a part of their caricature of the left. Sure, some have bought the narrative that the economics are somehow bad for US. But that's a weak and indirect point, and one that just isn't going to activate grassroots opposition.

The opposition does not oppose climate because they are anti-environment. In their minds, as I understand, climate change is a _pretext_ for more government control, taxes, and intrusion, and those are indeed reasons that make the people dig in their heels.

They've been conned. Burson-Marsteller developed the basic strategy, and Philip Morris implemented it as the National Smokers Alliance. It worked well enough that the Koch Brothers worked with them on The Tea Party.[0] And now we have Trump. Ain't life grand?

0) http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/23/4/322

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

Democracy has been proven a failure now that oligarchs have figured out mass propaganda. It will be dueling billionaires from here on out. Which is how government worked throughout most of history. The best we can hope for is a wise, benevolent king. Though unfortunately those were the rare exception.

Honestly, the only thing I can think of is to spend money out of your district or state.

Same as democracies everywhere. Organize and vote out the reps in the next elections. Americans are unique in how frequently you get opportunities to vote out leaders (2 years for Congress and 4 years for president) but you rarely do.

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.

Build a dome. Don't invite these people into the dome. Watch them cook, drown, or freeze upon retirement (if you have the luxury of retiring).

Call your Representative every day about matters of importance to you. A single call may not make a difference but thousands make a huge difference.

Also, find a local group that supports the same policy aims that you have. There are lots to find, especially compared to just 100 days ago. Join up with them and see how you can help amplify each others' voices.

I'm wondering if there's a better designed version of the IPCC climate change reports. Good information but presented in a massive PDF file which doesn't really lend itself to being referenced or browsed easily.

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).

There are websites such as https://www.datarefuge.org/ (Building refuge for federal climate & environmental data) which have archived the data. Sad nevertheless.

There are also files on archive.org, but I feel they are harder to find and browse. E.g. https://archive.org/details/ClimateChangeUSEPA or https://archive.org/details/perma_cc_JTL9-NV3L

Sounds pretty damn Orwellian when the Environmental Protection Agency isn't interested in protecting the environment anymore.

Ministry of Love.

Most Americans (70%) think climate change is real.

A large portion thinks it isn't made by men though.

http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/yco...

Specifically, 53% of people think it IS being caused by humans, whereas 32% think it's by natural causes.

Yes, and only 40% believe it harms them personally.

Hey, no surprise here. Just gotta get to the next screen. Maybe just a 4-8 year slog. Or maybe something truly dramatic will happen. Clathrate gun, or whatever. We live in interesting times.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com