Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 221 posts

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#151

Post by DaUR »

nkozyra wrote: post #124
DaUR wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He said since the beginning of the primaries that he believe in "Peace through Strength", and repeated it many times. If you believe he wants to invade the world, you may be a low-information voter, with all due respect. (note: I don't like military spending).

Ad hominem, strawman and passive aggressiveness in a single sentence. Impressive. We have - by any objective measure but ground troops and total warheads - the largest on the planet. "Peace through Strength" is nothing but a platitude. If it means anything, it's "Biggest Military." We didn't need Donald Trump for that. The notion that we must "rebuild" what is already a gigantic military is perplexing. Our military c…

Where did I argue we have to rebuild the military? Are you even replying to the right comment? Is your first sentence projection?

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#152

Post by DaUR »

davidgay wrote: post #122
DaUR wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He said since the beginning of the primaries that he believe in "Peace through Strength", and repeated it many times. If you believe he wants to invade the world, you may be a low-information voter, with all due respect. (note: I don't like military spending).

The idea that the US is weak and needs to increase its military budget to achieve "Peace through Strength" is laughable. The US's military budget is already nearly 3x higher than the next highest country ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_... ).

> The idea that the US is weak and needs to increase its military budget to achieve "Peace through Strength" is laughable.

Who are you arguing with? You haven't read my comment, clearly.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#153

Post by Rebelgecko »

mistermann wrote: post #139
cool_look wrote: post #135

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…

From the first link: "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 ab…

I recently read a very convincing (to me at least) debunking of that first link, but unfortunately I'm not able to find it right now. But from memory:

The claim is that the temperature data in the first map is made up because some of its data isn't present in the second map (just look at Africa, South America, and the oceans). HOWEVER:

The first map shows a combination of two data sets. The second map only shows one of the data sets used in the first map. Not surprisingly, this means that the second map has less data.

The two graphs are also covering different time periods. The second graph covers a smaller time period, so presumably that lets them be more specific about where the temperatures are recorded. The ERSST data in the first graph goes back more than 100 years, so they don't have quite the same precision and consistency in terms of where the measurements came from. The bigger grid squares in the first map reflect that some of the data is interpolated as weather stations moved from city to city, new weather stations start coming into play halfway through the dataset, etc.

EDIT: Apparently the debunking I read was on Stackoverflow of all places. I must've fallen down that rabbit hole while looking up something totally unrelated. Here's the link: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/37119/did-noaa-p...

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#154

Post by hexane360 »

username223 wrote: post #19
acomjean wrote: post #4

http://weather.gov (run by NOAA and the national weather service) is my go to weather site. No ads, no hyperbole. I found out about it when some senator wanted to stop them from posting weather online because it competed with "private sector" weather companies. A couple times I've seen that tv news weather leaves the site up on their monitors during newscasts.

Same. A lot of weather sites just pull the free NWS data and wrap it in ads. Some use higher-resolution grids or better models (check http://forecastadvisor.com/ for your area), but they're almost always at least based on the free NWS data. Also, only weather.gov lets you click around on a map to get their model results for any square on the grid, not just towns and cities. What is wrong with these people?! EDIT: Wei…

It's very easy to look at this and conclude that the White House has serious problems with studying climate change. I'm sure sticking our heads in the sand will fix the environment.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#155

Post by ajmurmann »

the8472 wrote: post #126
mikeash wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Collective action problems are not that easy to solve, no matter how dire the consequences of failure.

Did collective action not work for solving the hitler problem?

Taking down Hitler just needed one force to take down Hitler. We didn't need to convince the majority that Hitler needs to be taken down and agree on how to do it. There also was no competitive advantage to be won by preventing this from happening. If I keep my pollution deregulated on there other hand I have a big competitive advantage over everyone who does. Very different problem.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#156

Post by davesque »

findateamfirst wrote: post #79
mikeash wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you "know" the message is wrong but the messenger won't shut up about it, these things start to sound like a good idea.

When on Earth did anti science trolls take such a prominent role in HN? It's not hard for me to imagine a misinformation campaign run against HN, because I can't really understand how someone technical could countenance anti climate change ideas.

I'm fairly certain he was being sarcastic.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#159

Post by davesque »

blackaspen wrote: post #73

Yikes. But unfortunately not unsurprising. I live in Boulder and drive past the NOAA (and NIST, and I think parts of CIRES) offices every day. I've had family and countless professors that have done joint research with them, and very, very good friends and colleagues that have started their careers there. Part of how I wound up here (in the tech sector, posting to HN) was on an eighth grade field trip there asking ho…

Yep. I'm in Boulder too. NOAA, NCAR, and NIST have always been fixtures (almost cultural, not just scientific institutions) of this town. It's sad to hear this news and just serves to reinforce the sense of helplessness I feel when faced with climate science doubters. There really couldn't be a more important issue facing the planet right now. But, alas, humans mostly don't care.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#160

Post by exclusiv »

exclusiv wrote: post #117
findateamfirst wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When on Earth did anti science trolls take such a prominent role in HN? It's not hard for me to imagine a misinformation campaign run against HN, because I can't really understand how someone technical could countenance anti climate change ideas.

If you've done any sort of computer modeling, it's pretty easy to understand why technical people would have doubts. It's pretty easy to do it wrong and it's pretty easy to make it look right. Anyway, questioning is science and the debate is more about whether the sky is falling, whether man is primarily responsible, and if so what the next steps should be. So you can acknowledge that deforestation contributes to glo…

This also doesn't help ease concerns with those that are skeptical of many reports and models:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-chang...

> “Gradually, in the months after [the report] came out, the evidence kept mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’ — in the documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets — in an effort to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy,” Mr. Bates said Saturday on Climate Etc.

> “What John Bates has done is to expose this culture based not on robust science, but on promoting an agenda,” Mr. Pielke said in a comment on Climate Etc. “Regardless of one’s views on policies, the scientific method should not be hijacked as they have done.”

Post reply on HN