
EPA website removes climate science site from public view after two decades - fmihaila
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/04/28/epa-website-removes-climate-science-site-from-public-view-after-two-decades
======
adwhit
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.

~~~
candiodari
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](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...](http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/03/paris-un-global-warming-summit-at-
private-airport/) \- 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)

~~~
tzs
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?

~~~
rdiddly
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.

------
mankash666
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.

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

~~~
Sunset
Which "science" has been denied about gun control? The question of gun rights
is a moral one not scientific.

~~~
gumby
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.

~~~
manyxcxi
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.

~~~
gumby
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)](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-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jay-dickey-gun-violence-
research-amendment_us_561333d7e4b022a4ce5f45bf)

\- The ban has supposedly been lifted:
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-
the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-
years-ago/?utm_term=.67cc74189cad)

\- Some more history: [http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-
violence.as...](http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2013/02/gun-
violence.aspx)

\- some background: [http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-
gun-re...](http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-gun-research-
funding-20160614-snap-story.html)

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...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/12/why-the-centers-for-
disease-control-should-not-receive-gun-research-funding/#579695b5282d)

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. "

------
hplust
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?

~~~
taurath
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.

~~~
gavinpc
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.

~~~
aeontech
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.

~~~
mirimir
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](http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/23/4/322)

------
amenghra
There are websites such as
[https://www.datarefuge.org/](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](https://archive.org/details/ClimateChangeUSEPA)
or
[https://archive.org/details/perma_cc_JTL9-NV3L](https://archive.org/details/perma_cc_JTL9-NV3L)

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

~~~
_Codemonkeyism
Ministry of Love.

------
_Codemonkeyism
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...](http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-
us-2016/)

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

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

------
mirimir
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.

