14 ms·

Myron Ebell Takes On the E.P.A.

• struct 10y ago
  We are so screwed. Edit: we've known about the greenhouse effect since Victorian times, why is this still so controversial?
  • dboreham 10y ago
    Because: money
    • avisser 10y ago
      Because: externalized costs
    • userbinator 10y ago
      And general apathy.
  • everyone 10y ago
    Because of the socio-economic momentum of fossil fuels.
  • lgieron 10y ago
    Because: we understand that there is a relation, but we're having a hard time actually quantifying it (the models predict a wide range of possible future temperatures, and they themselves are super complex and change often so we cannot fully even trust those ranges). Without a solid prediction model, it's very hard to justify financial decisions - let alone global, trillion dollar ones.
  • dangjc 10y ago
    Because of politics. You can win votes in coal country if you promise them jobs. You can win votes in Alaska, Texas if you let them drill.
    • ZeroGravitas 10y ago
      And the people who make the real money, reinvest it by buying a pretence of scientific ignorance from politicians.
  • tfigment 10y ago
    Shankar Vedantam when on vacation to Alaska recently and realized how people think about climate change and decided to a podcast about why its hard to make people aware of it. [1] Basically, its in the future, its complicated, its costly if I recall correctly and our brains will turn off those kinds of things so its a trifecta of the worst characteristics if you want people to pay attention. [1] http://www.npr.org/2016/11/08/501073160/climate-change-the-forgotten-issue-of-this-years-election http://www.npr.org/2016/11/08/501073160/climate-change-the-f...
  • hackuser 10y ago
    > why is this still so controversial? IMHO, this theory explains that and many other mysteries of the beliefs of the right wing: A large segment of U.S. society now prioritizes ideology over fact. Climate change is fact, but fails their ideological test. Thus, they reject it.
    • api 10y ago
      This is shallow and is part of the reason Trump won. They prioritize culture, heritage, tradition, community, and stability (economic and social) over academic knowledge, mobility, novelty, etc. They are not dumb or more dishonest on average than anyone else, and the cognitive biases and blind spots they have are identical to yours. They are 99.99...% genetically identical to you. What they have is a different goal function. If you want to solve a monster global problem like climate change, part of it is finding solutions that can be viewed as positive from the perspective of the many operating goal functions in the world. The world is huge so this is hard. One sided answers that try to herd the rest through shame will fail, as they have for the right on other issues like abortion.
      • hackuser 10y ago
        My comment didn't assert most of the things you attribute to it. The existence of climate change is not an issue of priorities, but of facts. > academic knowledge It's just knowledge about reality; reality doesn't change depending on where the knowledge comes from. Academia happens to have far smarter people and far more resources for examining the world; it's a pretty good resource. Rejecting knowledge because it's from academia is exactly what I described, putting ideology (anti-intellectualism) over fact. > stability (economic and social) They voted overwhelmingly for massive change and some made calls for revolution if they don't get it. The policies they favor, including radical changes to government and social programs, would greatly reduce stability.
      • ant6n 10y ago
        People who make money on the status pro control media specifically targeting people to change their opinions. Those opinions include hate for the 'elite', which is code for intellectuals, academics and environmental activists who are exactly the people warning of climate change. This is easier of course because of the social cultural divide between those peoples. And before you say I'm calling people 'dumb' to be influenced by media that they are consuming; I think people at every level of intelligence are influenced by the media they are consistently consuming. That's why I don't like watching Fox news -- I started realizing that I will subtly adopt their way of thinking, even if I'm consciously critical of everything they're saying.
  • Lawtonfogle 10y ago
    Because you want people to pay for something they don't see any benefit for. It's like trying to get a company to invest in better security, except harder because there is little in the way of the climate change equivalent of security breaches.
  • tonyedgecombe 10y ago
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Dont-Even-Think-About-Climate/163286102X https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Dont-Even-Think-About-Clima... is a really interesting book on why we can't fix it.
• matwood 10y ago
  I'm not sure why everyone thinks Obama killed coal. Cratering natural gas prices are what killed coal. So short of artificially raising the price of nat gas, coal is not coming back regardless of who is in charge. http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/11/natural-gas-ambush-killed-off-coal-minin http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/11/natural-gas-ambush-killed-... http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Cheap-Natural-Gas-To-Spark-Another-Wave-Of-Coal-Plant-Retirements.html http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Cheap-Natural-Gas-...
  • marcoperaza 10y ago
    The amount of political heat that the Obama administration took for, the amount of effort that they poured into, their new coal regulations makes me skeptical of your claim.
    • alexc05 10y ago
      In fairness, quite often we see examples of "political heat" being driven by wilful ignorance and disingenuous outrage. In order to "score points" with the people who are watching them yell at their opponent. A politician might pretend their opponent has a position on something (A) and get very angry about that publicly, while knowing the whole while that actually the truth is (B) or sometimes they might even know that (A) was actually the only viable choice the whole time.
    • pavlov 10y ago
      If "amount of political heat" were a function of actual facts, Hillary Clinton would have been leading the assault at Benghazi herself. Blaming Obama for the decline of coal's commercial viability was a convenient fiction.
  • jrcii 10y ago
    Killing Coal: The Obama Administration’s Intentional Assault on an Industry http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/19/killing-coal-the-obama-administrations-intentional-assault-on-an-industry/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/19/killing-c...
  • 10y ago
• madaxe_again 10y ago
  I'm sure he does believe in it - as I'm sure many who are "climate deniers" in positions of power do, but the profit motive to get others to not believe in it is simply too strong for a man of wretched morals. I mean, one can make the rational (with a rather callous set of precepts) argument that if it happens after you're dead it doesn't matter - I had this argument made to me by a hedge fund owner/manager last year who I queried over his heavy investment in fossils - he is essentially looking to make a fortune and isn't concerned about the "far future". Where things will get interesting is when these figures realise that it isn't far future, it's going to impact their quality of life - but by then it'll likely be too late.
  • TorKlingberg 10y ago
    Or they assume that they and their families will be rich enough to avoid the consequences of climate change. Which is probably true.
    • madaxe_again 10y ago
      I'm not sure any amount of wealth will be enough, ultimately. You can't eat gold, and if we end up with mass displacement of people, we either go totalitarian or anarchy as the ship sinks. I don't think any of us will get out.
  • sixQuarks 10y ago
    No, the frustrating part is that even after they see the devastation caused by climate change, they will blame something else for it.
    • madaxe_again 10y ago
      Publicly. That's for you, not for them.
  • throwaway650058 10y ago
    Myron Ebell means everything he says.
• 0xcafecafe 10y ago
  Meanwhile in India renewables are outpacing coal... https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Renewables-Are-Outpacing-Coal-in-India https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Renewables-Are-...
  • SCdF 10y ago
    Man I hope so. ~30% of Indians are without power[1], and I hear they have a lot of coal naturally, so if they're not careful they could be a large growing source of problems in the future as they grid up. It's good to hear that both India and China seem to be taking climate change seriously. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/world-without-power/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/world-without-... (edited to add link to power fact)
    • landhar 10y ago
      Why is this comment being downvoted? Is it because the facts are wrong or because he didn't provide references?
• WheelsAtLarge 10y ago
  This is the stuff we should all be protesting. This is the type of appointment that can be changed in no time if enough people make their thoughts known. Come on all let the powers that be know that you don't like the choice.
  • jrheard 10y ago
    How should we go about doing this? Do we call a congressperson, or do something else?
    • WheelsAtLarge 10y ago
      This is a presidential appointment and the senate needs to approve it. Let your senator know how you feel about it. Also, let president Elect Trump know about your feelings and he might even back down on the selection. If anything is important this is. What the US does in this area influences what the rest of the world does. Also we, as a nation, are a chief producer of green house gasses. We are suppose to be the smart ones, the doers, the dreamers. Prove it! DO SOMETHING to change the world.
      • jrheard 10y ago
        Thank you, I'll call my senator!
    • evandev 10y ago
      Along with contacting Senators, there is also a Whitehouse petition.[0] 0: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/do-not-allow-myron-ebell-lead-epa-transition https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/do-not-allow-myron...
    • wpietri 10y ago
      The head of the EPA is subject to Senate confirmation [1], so you could start with your senators. You could also contribute to organizations likely to lobby on climate change. I think it's also worth looking at your own personal standing in society. E.g., many business owners are starting to recognize the economic costs of climate change, and they can talk to various business associations. People interested in national security also see climate change as a potential threat (due to disruption of large populations and increased competition for access to resources like water and arable land). I know some veterans have been speaking out on this. Climate change will have very broad effects, so many can speak out about what it means to them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_positions_filled_by_presidential_appointment_with_Senate_confirmation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_positions_filled_by_pr...
• marcoperaza 10y ago
  I don't care what they do or don't believe in. Will they build out nuclear power? If yes, then good. Will they engage in feel-good unilateral emissions cuts that hurt our economy and don't do anything about climate change? If no, then good.
  • drodgers 10y ago
    How is nuclear power not a "unilateral emissions cut"? If we start using more expensive nuclear power, then that will 'hurt' our economy (because we could have more nominal money if we bought the cheapest power). I think nuclear power would be great for the climate and we should pursue it, but it would be great in exactly the same way as any other unilateral emissions cut would be great (eg. tax incentives for electric cars, or a carbon tax, or replacing coal plants with wind farms).
  • Chyzwar 10y ago
    Emission cuts and support for renewable energy stimulate technology that will make your economy stronger. You cannot build this kind of technology and infrastructure overnight. EU and China make strong push towards clean energy in few years they will have cheap, clean energy.
  • alexc05 10y ago
    Actually, it sounds like he might be moving towards a situation where "we" burn a lot more coal, do a lot more fracking and, do a lot more of the things that generally release carbon into the atmosphere. That actually is a very bad thing. Potentially increasing emissions during a time when not cutting them deep enough represents a catostrophic risk, is a really bad thing.
• jrheard 10y ago
  What can citizens do about this? Trump hates women, so I'll donate to PP. Trump hates minorities, so I'll donate to the ACLU. Trump hates the actual physical earth - so what do I do about that?
  • 0xcafecafe 10y ago
    You can donate to people who can take you to Mars
    • yoz-y 10y ago
      How screwed up would the Earth need to be for this to be remotely an option though?
      • finid 10y ago
        At the rate we're messing up this planet, we'll need to find another planet real fast - relatively speaking, off course. But have no bother, it won't be in your lifetime. Not this lifetime anyway.
        • tlrobinson 10y ago
          The thing that puzzles me about this argument is any planet we find is likely to have a worse atmosphere than even a polluted Earth. If we're able to terraform Mars or whatever then we can likely also reverse the effects of global warming on Earth.
        • masklinn 10y ago
          > At the rate we're messing up this planet, we'll need to find another planet real fast - relatively speaking, off course. We can't even handle the planet we're already on, how in hell do you think we can terraform an entire separate planet? We're still only scratching the surface of understanding ecosystems today, the big thing these days is starting to try and understand how our internal microbiomes affect us personally, we're nowhere near understanding microbiotic effects on ecosystems at large. And all CES attempts so far have been abject failures.
• alexc05 10y ago
  > very strongly influenced by the “question authority” ethos of 1960s and ’70s counterculture Sounds like he's really a shining example of those hippie ideals. Strike back at "the man" and his regulations on behalf of those poor oppressed oil, gas and, coal corporations. Pardon my language here, since I think of hacker news as a place for intelligent and respectful discussion, but, fuck
  • finid 10y ago
    Don't worry. That 4-letter word in not a rarity on HN.
  • KirinDave 10y ago
    The way they sell this is by appealing directly to the people losing what amounted to very high paying but relatively unskilled jobs. Coal mining, working on an oil platform, working in a refinery, etc. That's why people believe this rhetoric even though it seems absurd on its face. They see the faces of people who have lost jobs that is largely obscured from other parts of America because it's of the geographic distribution of signed paychecks to the American middle and lower class. To defeat that rhetoric over the next 2 years, liberals and socialists need to find a story for how they're going to solve that problem and preserve a livelihood for folks suffering. And to be honest, that's a wee bit frustrating because as a whole millennials are already tackling these economic challenges without the safety net of a massive lobby, while being told they're lazy and valueless, and often with crippling student debt for a poorly conducted degree. But a vote is a vote, and not every citizen can or will vote against direct self-interest on moral grounds.
    • diyorgasms 10y ago
      Frankly, we had the candidate to address this. Taxpayer-funded education would have allowed these otherwise useless people to gain useful skills. I fear from now until the world becomes uninhabitable through climate change that these useless people will remain useless and keep voting in fascists and ultranationalists that will quite literally destroy the planet out of spite for the "elite" who were lucky and skilled enough to be useful to society.
• aleueet 10y ago
  prova
• StreamBright 10y ago
  I don't think that climate change is something that you can believe in. You can acknowledge or deny its existence but certainly cannot believe in it. The problem with the coal and fossil fuels is that we use a technology to produce energy that is literally 400,000 years old. We have the new technology ready (nuclear power) yet we stick to this old, polluting tech. This is insane.
  • SCdF 10y ago
    > I don't think that climate change is something that you can believe in. You can acknowledge or deny its existence but certainly cannot believe in it. Is there something more than semantics here that I'm missing? Not believing in climate change is functionally the same as denying it in this instance, correct?
    • StreamBright 10y ago
      I usually correct people when they tell me something like "but you believe in X, right?". Maybe it is just semantics, but for me it is significantly different: - denying it: there is evidence, yet they do not accept it. - do not believe in it: we cannot prove its existence factually and there are people who still think it exists and some who do not.
      • joshuaheard 10y ago
        - skeptical: there is evidence, but not enough to convince me we should make policy changes such as taxing and regulation; rather we should allow the free market to develop solutions in the form of new technology.
        • dingsbumps 10y ago
          Is this because you believe the free market will follow the most economically efficient path? What if the environmentally friendly options are always more expensive? Without regulation or tax incentives, it's easy to ignore the externalities in your choices. As an example taken to the extreme: if there was no regulation against dumping your industrial waste in the river, the free market should use that option, as it's cheaper than properly disposing of the waste.
• rayiner 10y ago
  The coal alignment is a bigger deal than climate change. We are SOL on climate change anyway (barring a scientific miracle)--there is no point worrying about whether one administration will or will not engage in token gestures. But coal is bad. The coal industry costs about half a trillion in externalized damage to health and the environment annually in the US alone: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/831755 http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/831755. And ironically, the voters in Appalachia being courted are bearing the brunt of it so people in surrounding urban areas can have cheap power: http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/blasting-appalachian-economy http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/blasting-appalachian-economy.
  • martin-adams 10y ago
    For those that don't know what SOL means (I had to look it up)... "S--t Outta Luck"
    • bluejekyll 10y ago
      I've also heard a less vulgar version of "sorry outa luck", the other ones better though.
    • sametmax 10y ago
      The urban dictionary is your best friend. Duck duck go even have a bang command for it (!ud).
      • imjustsaying 10y ago
        !u works too
    • gaur 10y ago
      You misspelled "shit".
      • martin-adams 10y ago
        >> You misspelled "shit" ahh S--t, so I did
• jostylr 10y ago
  The climate change cheat sheet embedded in that article was rather interesting. In addition to stating what we know, it also suggests some personal actions, actions which have been routinely ignored by the population for many years. A couple of quick examples: reduce flights and reduce eating beef. Instead of having a paternalistic government claim to solve our problems, we can do so. This election might just be a sufficient catalyst to make things happen. Also don't forget the power to not purchase from companies based on what they are doing and who they are working with. It is easy to get outraged and for some it is even easy to take dangerous actions, but to deprive oneself of what we want in the hope that others will do the same, that, that is hard.
  • tree_of_item 10y ago
    Yeah right, like a couple of private citizens not eating beef anymore is going to put a dent in climate change. We need governments to solve this, because they are the only entities big enough to actually affect this sort of large scale problem.
    • wpietri 10y ago
      It's not an either/or. Private citizens can also take action. And at least for me personally, relatively small personal actions (like flying less and switching to LED bulbs) make me more supportive of government action precisely because the things I can do directly turn out to be insufficient to the problem.
    • everfree 10y ago
      If hypothetically half of the US stopped eating beef today, that would make a huge positive impact on the US climate footprint. It wouldn't matter if the change were instigated by the government or by the people.
      • Luc 10y ago
        If my grandma had wheels... There's some small, temporary reductions in meat consumption in some countries, leveraging religious traditions, and appealing to health reasons. Maybe, possibly, over many generations, it could work to significantly reduce overall meat consumption. Maybe.
• ThePhysicist 10y ago
  If the US withdraws from the Paris accord, other countries like China will follow, as they will not want to be the ones that try to reduce emissions at the price of being less competitive (in the short run) when one of the largest economies in the world won't do it as well. And if the climate science projections are accurate, we will miss the last window of opportunity to reduce the heating and avoid the whole climate system tipping over. And with the current power that the Republicans have and Trump's attitude towards science it's highly unlikely that someone can stop them from going through with this. Seems it really was too good to be true.
  • pmyjavec 10y ago
    The US is not the only country that matters anymore, I don't think China will pull out no matter what US does, they are smart enough to be making money from building renewable tech for the world and onselling it. It's really in Chinese interest to encourage the shift. This is just another race the US is losing.
    • ThePhysicist 10y ago
      Well let's hope so!
    • up_and_up 10y ago
      Yeah I think China will see it as an opportunity to show leadership and it will play into their attempt to shift the balance of power away from the USA.
      • pmyjavec 10y ago
        This too!
    • Turing_Machine 10y ago
      China consumes more coal than the rest of the world combined, and the amount increases every year. http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=9751 http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=9751
• colmvp 10y ago
  Is there a difference in being the leader of an agency and leading the transition at an agency? Because the latter is what he is labeled as which makes it seems like it's a fairly temporary role.
  • justin66 10y ago
    Cabinet positions are appointed by the president and confirmed by congress. Right now, he's just some guy.
• Pxtl 10y ago
  Maybe it's my white straight male privilege talking, but this scares me 100x more than his racism and sexual predation, and I wish it had gotten more coverage in the debates and election. If this happens, history will remember Trump as the Neville Chamberlain of the climate catastrophe. He won't just be screwing America's plans, this is one of those areas where "leader of the free world" isnt hyperbole - America's decisions will have massive domino-effects on related economies.
  • jug5 10y ago
    You know you're a pussy when you need to apologize for having your own opinion. Worthless.
  • rev_bird 10y ago
    >history will remember Trump as the Neville Chamberlain of the climate catastrophe I'm not sure this is true, but not because the sentiment is wrong: It implies that at some point, climate change will be as universally recognized for its negative effects as Hitler is, and that people will go back to examine how it happened. I don't have a lot of faith in the U.S. to get to either of those points; if I've learned anything from this election, it's that we have an astounding capacity to look at all the facts and just say, "ah, no thanks."
    • Pxtl 10y ago
      It will take longer, but we'll get there eventually. Imagine 50 years from now the Global South becoming inhospitable and hundreds of millions of refugees fleeing flooding, heat waves, and drought. They'll look back on us and ask "what did they do when they had the best opportunity to stop this?"
  • zanny 10y ago
    Its not really privilege, you probably just have no immediate people in your life you care a lot about who are fearing for their freedom in the next four years. That isn't a negative personality trait either, we cannot as a people expect anyone to have empathy for a group they have no personal ties to, especially in contrast to real threats against themselves. Both are problems, it is just those who are in danger of suffering from Trump's racism / xenophobia / sexism and their immediate peers see that as the more immediate threat, because he can undo decades of civil rights and equality in the first days of his presidency. He can set in motion programs to destroy the climate more in the first days of his tenure, but it will take years to suffer the consequences of them, even if they are much more permanent than immediate regressions in liberty. For individuals, permanence does not matter - your time is limited, and everything Trump takes away represents days or years you will never get back of oppression.
• joantune 10y ago
  I just watched Before the Flood, and then right after I see this trending here.. god help us..
• Pxtl 10y ago
  "Climate contrarian?". That article was far too diplomatic about a man who stands against scientific consensus and for a global catastrophe.
• pragone 10y ago
  It's worth pointing out that coal is not coming back. Far too much of industry has moved on and converted to natural gas based supply. Not to mention the costs of starting up coal mines and processing again. In the current energy market, it's rather unfathomable.
• jhallenworld 10y ago
  This reminds me of James G. Watt- Regan's secretary of interior. He believed it was pointless to worry about the environment since the Lord's second coming was nigh.
• roryisok 10y ago
  This kind of thing is what scares me most about a trump presidency (that and wondering what kind of over the top candidates are going to appear in three years to try and imitate his success) but I'm trying really hard to be positive and see a way out for the climate, and I only see two options 1. Green energy becomes so much more competitive than fossil that trump and his cronies have to do a 180 2. Millions more people worldwide are inspired to go green and start generating their own green power, through wind and solar technology like musks roof tiles. Preferably both, otherwise it's goodbye civilisation in the next 50-100 years. I have to try and be an optimist
  • KirinDave 10y ago
    The thing is, for certain aspects of the story #1 is absolutely there already and other countries recongize this. Alternative generation brings new challenges (and less well subsidized jobs), but other countries are not collapsing their economy as they convert.
  • lucaspiller 10y ago
    #2 isn't going to happen anytime soon. Governments worldwide are cutting funding and subsidies for micro generation, and even though it could lead to a small profit over time, nobody wants to pay say $20k upfront[0] to have a solar system fitted. Its kind of funny, because if we paid more in the short term we could do a lot to limit climate change, and even reduce energy costs in the future - but everyone just wants everything as cheap as possible now. [0] Although I have seen companies offering to install panels on your property, which they own, then they pay you a % of the profits from energy generated.
• 0xFFC 10y ago
  This scares the shit out of me. America what have you done?
• dylandrop 10y ago
  If this scares you, consider donating. http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/ http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/ (I posted this as a reply to one of the comments but I want to make sure it's seen, given the gravity of the situation.)
• shoefly 10y ago
  Defeat ignorance with cleverness. Create a solution that is far superior to what coal and oil have to offer. Make it so affordable that you cut the coal industry off at the knees without relying on politicians to get the job done. This site is full of very smart people. Get this shit done!
  • kristjansson 10y ago
    Enter fracked natural gas, stage left.
• trashtoss 10y ago
  Back in the cold war days it was something of a banal truism that only an objective, external threat--e.g. alien invaders--could ever get us squabbling apes to set our differences aside and work together towards some common goal. It is very likely that within a decade the effects of climate change will go from "scientists arguing" to "transparent to everyone". Although this will not exactly be "alien invaders"--"real life godzilla" seems closer to the mark--civilization as we know it will be faced with an external threat that cares not for what we think--indeed, that cannot be bargained with--but only for how we act (and indeed, if we act). If nothing else that thought experiment will become a real experiment soon; I hope we make it through. One thing to consider is how much uglier our national discourse will likely become. For example, the narrative around our recent election seems to be settling around a rejection of urban and coastal elites and experts: middle america is tired of being ignored, insulted, condescended-to, looked down upon as ignorant yokels, and so on and so forth..."show us and our opinions some respect", they say, electing the man who's now appointing the man who's going to (literally) slam the pedal to the metal while (figuratively) rolling coal all the way. I wonder how these people will wind up being thought-of once climate change goes from deniable--as it is now, at least domestically--to undeniable (as it certainly will, and likely soon). I mean, seriously: if for forty years you've been warned by experts that continuing to do X will eventually lead to Y, you continue to do X, and it eventually leads to Y...how can you reasonably expect anyone to respect you? To consider your opinions worth the time and energy even to listen to, let alone take into consideration? Why should you not expect to be seen as anything other than an idiot in the classical sense ("incapable of useful reasoning; danger to self and others")? I do not expect this to end well--culturally and socially--and expect it will play out far uglier than the dust bowl... I also think readers on this site vastly underestimate how radically the world will shift once change becomes undeniable; the default assumption seems to be that things will generally continue as they always have right up until it gets so bad it's game over for everyone. In reality, as soon as it climate change begins having undeniable impacts expect a radical changes in financial behavior...which will likely have direct, pervasive impact upon daily life well in advance of the direct impacts of climate change proper. Will the 30-year mortgage remain typical for home purchases? Will 5-year commercial leases remain typical? Will it remain possible to price weather derivatives accurately enough to be viable? Will SV angels continue hobby-investing in high-risk, high-reward gambles, or turn their attention to second homes in northern latitudes? I can only see a move to shorter time horizons and more risk aversion from the private sector.
• ww520 10y ago
  Trump is a businessman by training. Business pivots a lot. He will probably try different things and pivot as needed in his administration. I'm sure nothing is cast in stone. With enough opposition, he will change his appointment. He fired his campaign manager for poor result in the primary and brought on a new one who brought success to his campaign. I'm sure he will fire a number of people in the coming days.
  • yolesaber 10y ago
    He fired that campaign manager (Corey Lewandowski) so that he could work for CNN and essentially be the Trump talking head. Also Trump is probably going to rehire him - http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/12/corey-lewandowski-donald-trumps-former-campaign-manager-leaves-cnn.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/12/corey-lewandowski-donald-trum...
    • ZeroGravitas 10y ago
      He also assaulted a female journalist (from Brietbart ironically) and then the Trump campaign flatly denied it ever happened despite it happening to one reporter right in front of another. Luckily for them it was also caught on camera or they'd have to live with being smeared as liars by the next President of the USA: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/07/the-trump-campaigns-war-on-reality-made-me-question-what-i-saw/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/11/07/...
    • ww520 10y ago
      Corey is much more effective as a campaign manager than a token guy in CNN. He got fired because of the loss of Colorado delegates without voting in the primary. Conway proved to be a better campaign manager anyway, leading to a successful presidential bid. The point is Trump fires people for poor performance, and he is not afraid to pivot.
      • yolesaber 10y ago
        He is also not afraid to let the KKK march in his name either. For the record Trump has denounced the protests against him, but not the many white supremacy marches across the country
• throwaway650058 10y ago
  I used to work with Myron Ebell. Setting aside his views on climate change, I don't believe he's qualified to lead a federal agency. His position at the Competitive Enterprise Institute has involved almost no leadership experience. And I don't know how anyone could expect him to keep any part of the environment clean after seeing his office. You couldn't see the floor under all those books and papers. I doubt Myron has the ability to lead the EPA in any direction whatsoever.
• patrickg_zill 10y ago
  Why is it that I can't download all the relevant climate data, and all the mathematical models of climate, and run the scenario myself? It's all government funded, so why isn't it open and available?
• dec0dedab0de 10y ago
  jrcii was not downvoted. it is a banned account, and you are seeing it because you have "show dead" enabled.
  • grzm 10y ago
    How did you determine jrcii is banned? Is it that their most recent comments are marked '[dead]' and not '[flagged][dead]'?
  • giardini 10y ago
    Thank you. I looked at jrcii's account and see what you describe: jrcii was feeling his oats after the elections and took a Trumpic victory lap by posting a pretty snarky comment on YC. In that comment jrcii disses: climate warning, "Silicon Valley people, LA people, NYC people, city people, liv[ing] in a bubble formed by the urban politics around you and reinforced by liberal college professors, the liberal students they create, and the liberal mass media. This is simply not reality for vast swaths of the country." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12917083 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12917083 OK, so he does this once, just once. There's no pattern of misbehavior. He didn't threaten anyone (no "Second Amendment People" comin'!). For all we know he's the last conservative in SF and needs to blow off steam. YC is a great forum. I think it harsh for a techie to be banned for a single scattergun comment especially after a heated election. I would think a caution would be better at this juncture, or even some ribbing: "OK, we hear you celebrating! Your guy won this time. But soon we'll find out whether he can ride the horse!" or such.
    • ahlatimer 10y ago
      At the risk of getting too far off topic, that isn't the comment that got jrcii banned; this is: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12698197 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12698197 As for several repeat violations mentioned in the thread, you can find several other comments in jrcii's history that have been marked as [flagged][dead].
      • giardini 10y ago
• danielnaab 10y ago
  Trump won't listen to traditional environmental groups. I think what is needed is for a right-wing organization to offer a conservative non-denier as an alternative, and mount a large public campaign to pressure Trump to change course. Perhaps the scariest part of Trump is that he is such an unknown blank slate, but that also offers an opportunity if we recognize it. I'm contacting my Republican Senator and making an, admittedly, futile attempt to appeal to his reason. Please consider doing the same: http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/ http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/
• sn9 10y ago
  > “I really think that people should be suspicious of authority,” he told an interviewer last year. “The more you’re told that you have to believe something, the more you should question it.” This amounts to a sort of intellectual homeopathy when it comes to dismissing the scientific consensus on an issue without commensurate evidence.
• kapauldo 10y ago
  The inmates have taken over the asylum.