71–80 of 299 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The current administration doesn’t care about climate change, or believes it’s a hoax. Given this, they see no need to fund research and data gathering that tells them otherwise.
To be fair, the public in large also dgaf about climate change. Honestly, at this point, having natural disasters with destruction and death is probably the only way to make people care.
The scales of money at play always seem so strange. Oh a few hundred million for ocean sensors, or about what a few OpenAI / Cursor employees or a few hundred FAANG employees could personally fund if they desired to do so.
These sensors and a bunch of other scientific research for a thousand years, or pointless war with Iran for 3 months.
As a physical oceanographer, the destruction of these observing systems is horrific. It is hard to stress enough how intentionally OMB is trying to disassemble American science. The new (proposed) OMB guidelines prohibit international collaboration without pre approval for example. They also codify a political grant approval process. https://arstechnica.com/science/2026/05/the-office-of-manage... Additionally, OMB is…
Read the article, but I'm still not seeing why the U.S. is pulling these sensors. Anyone have any insight?
There's no point in spending taxpayer money understanding what may or may not happen in the future, when we already know what will happen: Jesus is coming back. We need to spend on the military for the final battle of Armageddon. ^ Literally the beliefs of the most influential part of the political base of the administration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The current administration doesn’t care about climate change, or believes it’s a hoax. Given this, they see no need to fund research and data gathering that tells them otherwise.
To be fair, the public in large also dgaf about climate change. Honestly, at this point, having natural disasters with destruction and death is probably the only way to make people care.
to be honest I always assumed scientific sensors like those also had military applications either directly or indirectly (installing listening devices at the same time as installing the scientific equipment). That'd be partly why we fund and keep them around. But I guess not!
The anti climate change angle and the pain inflicted to "liberal" climate scientists is a nice to have but maybe not main reason for this move.
I don't understand how that has led to the sensor network being dismantled. Surely it would have been cheaper to leave it in place and stop maintaining it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not even about saving money. If they just wanted to save money they'd just stop paying attention to the data coming in, retask/lay off the people working on it, and let the buoys stay out there. A dumb idea to me, but at least that's consistent. Let other organizations decide to manage the buoys. While I'd prefer for the government to do it, it could be possible to have other groups fund such things. It would be…
In what world is more spending for less data a good deal?
> Starting this week, the Ocean Observatories Initiative will lose a network of more than 900 ocean sensors from waters off Oregon, Washington, Alaska, North Carolina and Greenland. > By 2027, the National Science Foundation will have dismantled most of the system, which had been slated to run another 15 to 20 years. > Scientists had seen warning signs as the Trump administration’s proposed 2026 budget included a 55%…
Why not just sell them to some other country? Surely Canada would buy the in-place sensors and take them over.
As Professor Ed Dever said, after ten years we are only now beginning to get 'some hints,' yet they present it as if no solution has been offered. But this kind of data is long term time series data. If some of it gets damaged, it would take decades of operation again.
The value being undermined in the United States is enormous. They withdraw this simply because their supporters don't believe in climate change, for the sake of approval ratings. But this damages trust in long term research projects in the US, and America's leadership in the R&D world. If the cost is that high, why did they go to war with Iran?
There are so many things I don't understand. Why, while calling themselves a consumer nation, are they destroying the hegemony they themselves built?
True dominance requires the consent of the governed. America's status as the strongest superpower was a product of the consent of surrounding subordinate nations. That's what Antonio Gramsci talked about.
Things the US scaled back, like USAID, also created a favorable image of American imperialism. So even though the US invaded and destroyed South American countries in reality, it played a role in making people believe it was truly about freedom and progress. That is symbolic capital. But what Trump is doing now is beyond comprehension.
From a third party perspective, Trump administration policies make it look like they imagine a feudal system built on top of America as the supreme state. They are destroying long term leadership and the trust the US has built.
Some might call the Trump administration's actions 'unpretentious honesty.' But this is not honesty. It's just greed. The Trump administration seems to have created America's bankruptcy. In my view, Trump always wins. It's just not America's victory