131–140 of 221 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lumping social security in with taxes? You must be very good with numbers.
I'll ignore the ad hominem. Minus SS, it's still less than 21% of total federal spending.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've used weather.gov for years and love the service. Every person I've talked to who complains about the crap coverage by the weather companies in the US that I've shown it to uses it exclusively as well. It's a perfect example of the governments lack of profit motive producing a genuinely better product than the competition. I know this isn't always the case but it certainly is here. I don't agree with lots of thin…
Is the logic here that by slashing NOAA funding, no real claims of climate change will be made and Trump will prevail?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I live in Dixie Alley [0], a place prone to incredibly violent tornadoes. The National Weather Service, part on NOAA, has saved many lives here. If you follow along on a weather enthusiast forum like TalkWeather [1], you'll see just some of the protection that NWS provides us. The prediction and modeling alone are amazing. The thought of not having those people looking out for me is terrifying. [0] https://en.wikiped…
Is it the federal governments job to invest in protecting people that knowingly live in dangerous areas though? Not saying you shouldn't live there, but if you have a known risk and your local government and citizens cannot manage that risk - why should other citizens across the country pay for that? I understand those services were being delivered and now there might be a gap which is worrisome, but can it be solved…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I'm not mistaken than the vast majority globally is convinced of man made climate change being an issue. The holdouts primarily seem to be a subset of US Americans. There is disagreement on what a fair solution would look like but the vast majority agrees on the problem.
Let us be honest: no they are not convinced. If they were legitimately terrified of existential disaster >400ppm, they would be IMMEDIATELY limiting industrial production and investing MASSIVELY into carbon sequestration and renewables. The fact that ALL NATIONS take half-hearted and half-assed measures to confront what the pro-AGW crowd paints as an extinction risk demonstrably contradicts your claim that "the vast…
Its actually not; even if it is an extinction risk, if a meaningful difference in risk can't be made absent collective action, you have a massive tragedy of the common problem in which individual states are incentivized to do as little as possible, except what is necessary to signal that they would be open to serious action if there was an agreement on collective action.
The NOAA has been suspected of doctoring the record[1], of all varieties including the satellites once they got control of them[2]. there will be more insider stories of how some conspired to fake AGW data [3]
so I think it likely that the revisions and corrections will be challenged soon and we will see that the revisions had no factual basis. Many will resign, probably jumping before pushed. The cuts are unfortunately prejudging the outcome.
[1] https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/11/21/noa...
[2] https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/03/08/rss-satellite-tem...
[3] https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/02/12/boo...
Steve Bannon has a thing for shipyards. Someone should tell him what the NOAA does for merchant shipping.
Worse forecasts -> more dangerous shipping -> more ships lost at sea -> more business for shipyards.
Or maybe it's just late and I've turned hyperbole up a smidgen.
Just playing devil's advocate can someone articulate what kind of value we will lose as a society?
These, in turn, enable people to take informed actions to protect lives, property, and economic assets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But close the loop - the reason US Americans don't believe in climate change is because energy companies have paid politicians and fringe scientists to deny climate change. Why do energy companies care? Because climate change mitigation would cost them a lot of money.
It's not just that. There's a religious component to it (only God can alter the Earth so dramatically, or Jesus is returning soon so it doesn't matter, or similar) as well as an ideological component (mitigating climate change can't be done with laissez-faire approaches). At this point, it's self-reinforcing. One of our two major political parties has climate change denial as a fundamental part of its identity. Lots…
Sorry to hear about anyone losing jobs. The NOAA has been suspected of doctoring the record[1], of all varieties including the satellites once they got control of them[2]. there will be more insider stories of how some conspired to fake AGW data [3] so I think it likely that the revisions and corrections will be challenged soon and we will see that the revisions had no factual basis. Many will resign, probably jumpin…
"Note how a huge swathe of South America has been labelled as “record warmest”. And what is this based on? In fact, there is virtually no temperature data available at all for that particular area, including nearly all of Brazil. The so-called record temperatures in Brazil and neighbouring countries are pure fabrication."
That seems like a pretty bold charge, how does someone who knows nothing about this tell who's telling the truth? Anyone care to weigh in?
EDIT: Seems you're downvoted to grey already, hopefully someone can still add some commentary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the logic here that by slashing NOAA funding, no real claims of climate change will be made and Trump will prevail?
That's probably a part of it, but the budget cuts across the government (outside of defense and law enforcement) are also a realization of goal of at least the Bannon faction of the Trump White House to basically burn the whole system of government to the ground.