Live data from Hacker News

White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

science.org

91–100 of 229 posts

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, or, hear me out, we could stop with the stupid culture war crap and get back to running the country like adults?

It takes two to tango. Every progressive I know would be thrilled to stop with the culture war BS. However, MAGA refuses to just let people live their lives the way they want.

> Every progressive I know would be thrilled to stop with the culture war BS. However, MAGA refuses to just let people live their lives the way they want.

Are you using some nonstandard definition of "progressive" and "MAGA", or do you genuinely have the belief that the left wing is closer to the center majority of this country in "culture war" matters than the right wing?

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#92
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah... "I would do nothing different from Biden"[1] probably wasn't the right message at the peak of Biden's unpopularity. I wonder who came up with that, or if it was genuine. [1]: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/08/harris-biden-the-vi...

If people payed attention, Kamala’s policies were decently well thought out and not the exact same as Biden. It’s more about how demonized the libs have been, dissatisfaction with “woke culture,” certain groups of conservatives who will never vote pro-choice, and certain populations not feeling like they have a spot in liberal dialogue. (Young men.) and partly because she’s a black woman. I would argue the election h…

Broadly speaking, people don't pay attention. The message from her campaign[1] was that she would do nothing differently from Biden. This is a mistake even if (especially if!) her actual policies are different from Biden's.

The only thing Harris could come up with was, eventually: "unlike Biden, I will have a republican in my cabinet".

[1]: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/08/harris-biden-the-vi...

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#93
This is just an attempt by one political party to censor climate research. The hope is, if there is no research being done, then there will be no pressure to do anything about it. This is similar to the COVID mentality of, "stop the testing." If you don't test for COVID, the numbers don't get worse.

However, as someone who has worked at NCAR for many years, I can tell you that the place is a mess. The Table Mesa facility is mostly devoid of employees, with entire floors of offices left in a state of dark decay. Most of the vehicles in the parking lot are people hiking the trails, and days of yucky weather will reveal at most a couple dozen cars in the parking lot, mainly maintenance people. Elementary school groups continue to show up for tours, but the scientists and technical staff have moved to other buildings in town, specifically the Center Green and Foothills Lab clusters.

NCAR has become a mere shadow of its former self, with > 30% of its funding being absorbed by the Directorate and President's offices, with some executive salaries exceeding half a million dollars (not bad for a non-profit). The younger talent have fled, from the engineers up to the upper management, and what remains are aged-out scientists just waiting for retirement. Internal surveys, which seem to be sent out almost weekly, tend to show very low confidence in the leadership. It's a tanker running on inertia, and breaking it up and selling it off may be the best thing for it.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#94
post #10
post #6

I grew up in Colorado, and a visit to NCAR was part of my elementary school education. I think it is so critically important to not only employ working scientists, but also share that science with the public. The republican machine vehemently disagrees, I guess. I deeply wish the democrats had run a better campaign in 2024.

Yeah... "I would do nothing different from Biden"[1] probably wasn't the right message at the peak of Biden's unpopularity. I wonder who came up with that, or if it was genuine. [1]: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/08/harris-biden-the-vi...

She was basically trying not to go negative on Biden while still in office. Biden and his team were actively pressuring her to stay onside, according to some reporting, which is indefensible. Reprehensible really. She should've burnt the bridge.

But it probably wouldn't have made a difference in the end. It was all mostly over when Biden decided to run again in the first place. Kamala moved numbers in states she campaigned in, and she probably could have moved more with enough time.

Mistakes were made - but most important and most blameworthy mistake came from the Republicans 4 years earlier, when they rejected their obligation to impeach and convict after Trump nearly killed them all on TV.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't put words in people's mouths. If you disagree with someone's position, make your own counterargument.

That's not putting words into someone else mouth: What else would you even call supporting the erasure of an entire nation? If it's genocide when Israel does it to others, it must be genocide if done to Israel.

What you did is exactly putting words in someone's mouth, and it's the reason your comment was killed. Don't do it again. There are better ways to make your point.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The specific issue that caused her to lose the election was her support for Israel. It was the largest reason that Biden 2020 voters didn't vote for Harris in 2024, per polls that specifically analyzed the causes of her loss. (not polls that took general moods or ideas) Had she dropped support for Israel, she would have been president. And going forward, there will never be a Democratic president that supports Israel…

Why would she lose the general Presidential election based solely on her pro-Israel stance, if Trump also had a pro-Israel stance at that time (and still does)? That explanation doesn't make sense.

Elections in the US are mostly decided by who can drive turnout.

It isn't that the people who would have voted for Kamala (if not for her stance on Israel) voted for Trump instead, they just didn't vote at all.

I wish potential voters like that put a little more effort into harm mitigation but history shows they dont.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#97
post #41
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question from a European who doesn’t deeply understand your partisan politics: what specifically should they have done differently? My probably wrong understanding was that people were still angry about the inflationary consequences of dealing with the pandemic and didn’t believe it was tapering off, didn’t believe that unemployment was low, didn’t believe that real wages were increasing. How could they have combated…

I'll bite as an independent: I believe that "they" could have reverted to Clinton(Bill) or Obama's moderate stances in regards to border/immigration and gender/identity politics and maintained a sweeping majority. If the Democrats had disclosed Biden's decline and held a primary this likely would have sorted itself out.

As a Canadian I strongly felt it was GG to the Democrats when they didn’t run a second, competitive, knives-out primary for VP Harris.

For the second time, the party apparatus coalesced around a candidate who was ultimately trounced by someone wrongly considered unelectable.

Even if it was just theatre in the end, having a dramatic primary where the VP won would have made her look stronger and given her a chance to claw back some of the swing voters.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#98
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would she lose the general Presidential election based solely on her pro-Israel stance, if Trump also had a pro-Israel stance at that time (and still does)? That explanation doesn't make sense.

[flagged]

"In a democracy, you get the government you deserve."

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#99
post #4

[flagged]

Democracy won’t be restored until we increase the number of political parties in this country and fix how our officials are elected. I wish I had the answer on how to solve this, but alas… I’ll defer to people who are smarter than me.

> Democracy won’t be restored until we increase the number of political parties in this country

Parliamentary systems with many parties run into a different kind of dysfunction. Belgium didn't have a government for like two years relatively recently because they couldn't form a big enough coalition. In a democracy, there is no magic bullet that does not involve the quality of the demos.

What is your idea of democracy that needs to be restored in this country?

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#100

This fits a consistent trend: Unless Congress explicitly mandates something by law, they should expect an administration to unilaterally dismantle it. Congress delegated authority assuming it’s used in good faith and courts+executive have called Congress’s bluff. In this case it’s a facility created by NSF, but Congress doesn’t explicitly say this HAS to exist. Therefore it won’t exist any longer.

It's mandated by law how tariffs may be levied and how states may police themselves and how they may independently conduct their elections.

If you think law will stop this administration then you're not paying enough attention.

Post reply on HN