4 ms·

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

by kbrwn 10y ago

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.

notarealdoctor 10y ago
If the staff of any government agency is increased by 1000, will results improve? How about by 10,000 or 100,000? Does it take 1 Million? Is there anything wrong with cutting what isn't helping or is redundant and applying those funds where they are needed more?
- cyrusaf 10y ago
  I think many would make the argument that not enough is being done environmentally and that more action needs to be taken. Cutting funding to the EPA and lifting restrictions are reversing the progress that we have made environmentally in the past couple decades.
- twinkletwinkle 10y ago
  No one is talking about staffing. We're talking about the executive gag order and similar policies. The number of employees is irrelevant if they aren't allowed to communicate their findings in a transparent way.
  - copperred 10y ago
    The gag order is a temporary measure until new leaders are in place.
SmokyBorbon 10y ago
Except the manipulation is mostly in the other direction. For example, data sets from NASA suddenly changed on year showing increased in temperatures where previously there had been none. The current administration would argue that they're unpoliticizing science. If you're going to manipulate the data to help your side you can't complain when the other side does it. Unfortunately, the chance to have an honest discussion about the climate was destroyed by those climate zealots "hiding the decline".
ebfe 10y ago
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 10y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- sctb 10y ago
  We've already asked you to stop abusing the site with primarily racial ideology, so we've banned the account. We're happy to unban accounts if you email us at hn@ycombinator.com and we believe you'll post within the guidelines in the future.
  - ebfe 10y ago
    Surely you can understand why I might not want this attached to a normal account- I've had people harass my employer before over this. I don't think I've been uncivil or unreasonable towards other users, and you don't seem to be saying as much. Is there a way to discuss this concept without breaking site rules, or is the concept itself what is prohibited?
Esau 10y ago
I believe the Republican skepticism of climate change is not born from disagreement but from the monetary influence of businesses who would be adversely affected from regulation and change. Sleeping while out beds are burning indeed.
snappyTertle 10y ago
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.
- jaredklewis 10y ago
  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-eight-year-high.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eig...
  - snappyTertle 10y ago
    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.
    - mercer 10y ago
      Honest question: what incentive would private companies have to address climate change? It strikes me as a perfect example of an externality that these companies wouldn't be incentivized to change.
nyxtom 10y ago
These agencies exist as an extension of the executive branch of government. Having them run independently with their own policy agendas can be just as dangerous or economically limiting depending on the policy positions of the time. Lucky for us, since we don't live under a regime, these policy changes allow us to refocus our efforts where necessary. I have a biotech friend who says that new grant directions will likely be directed towards infrastructure and defense. What is striking to me is that there is agreement that climate change can be a geopolitical issue multiplier. Effects on agriculture, ability of diseases to spread in a warming climate, mass migrations, loss of clean water, inevitable natural disaster relief expenses increasing. The evidence shows that this sort of thing should be considered a national security issue.

by kbrwn 10y ago

notarealdoctor 10y ago

If the staff of any government agency is increased by 1000, will results improve? How about by 10,000 or 100,000? Does it take 1 Million? Is there anything wrong with cutting what isn't helping or is redundant and applying those funds where they are needed more?

cyrusaf 10y ago
I think many would make the argument that not enough is being done environmentally and that more action needs to be taken. Cutting funding to the EPA and lifting restrictions are reversing the progress that we have made environmentally in the past couple decades.
twinkletwinkle 10y ago
No one is talking about staffing. We're talking about the executive gag order and similar policies. The number of employees is irrelevant if they aren't allowed to communicate their findings in a transparent way.
- copperred 10y ago
  The gag order is a temporary measure until new leaders are in place.

SmokyBorbon 10y ago

Except the manipulation is mostly in the other direction. For example, data sets from NASA suddenly changed on year showing increased in temperatures where previously there had been none. The current administration would argue that they're unpoliticizing science. If you're going to manipulate the data to help your side you can't complain when the other side does it. Unfortunately, the chance to have an honest discussion about the climate was destroyed by those climate zealots "hiding the decline".

ebfe 10y ago

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 10y ago
[deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sctb 10y ago
We've already asked you to stop abusing the site with primarily racial ideology, so we've banned the account. We're happy to unban accounts if you email us at hn@ycombinator.com and we believe you'll post within the guidelines in the future.
- ebfe 10y ago
  Surely you can understand why I might not want this attached to a normal account- I've had people harass my employer before over this. I don't think I've been uncivil or unreasonable towards other users, and you don't seem to be saying as much. Is there a way to discuss this concept without breaking site rules, or is the concept itself what is prohibited?

Esau 10y ago

I believe the Republican skepticism of climate change is not born from disagreement but from the monetary influence of businesses who would be adversely affected from regulation and change. Sleeping while out beds are burning indeed.

snappyTertle 10y ago

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.

jaredklewis 10y ago
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-eight-year-high.aspx http://www.gallup.com/poll/190010/concern-global-warming-eig...
- snappyTertle 10y ago
  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.
  - mercer 10y ago
    Honest question: what incentive would private companies have to address climate change? It strikes me as a perfect example of an externality that these companies wouldn't be incentivized to change.

nyxtom 10y ago

These agencies exist as an extension of the executive branch of government. Having them run independently with their own policy agendas can be just as dangerous or economically limiting depending on the policy positions of the time. Lucky for us, since we don't live under a regime, these policy changes allow us to refocus our efforts where necessary. I have a biotech friend who says that new grant directions will likely be directed towards infrastructure and defense. What is striking to me is that there is agreement that climate change can be a geopolitical issue multiplier. Effects on agriculture, ability of diseases to spread in a warming climate, mass migrations, loss of clean water, inevitable natural disaster relief expenses increasing. The evidence shows that this sort of thing should be considered a national security issue.