Earlier quoted context omitted.
This snide response would be a lot better if climate.gov had actually been taken down by those representatives you mention, rather than illegally destroyed by one man.
No no, the snide response works because this shutdown was a violation of aforementioned system. Downstream discussions on “oh hurrr ummm how do we decide what’s worth spending money on?!” are irrelevant. We already have a system to do that, and that system has decided to fund climate.gov
Former NOAA employees built Climate.us to preserve climate data and resources
211–220 of 227 posts
Re: Former NOAA employees built Climate.us to preserve climate data and resources
#212Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2024/07/noaa-pro...
You do understand how this isn't an example of what I'm asking for, right? In 20 years worth of history - you can't identify a single piece of legislation or a single executive action to demonstrate an ongoing threat to NOAA? You have to immediately jump to the tautology of "Project 2025 is dismantling NOAA because an article two years ago said Project 2025 was going to dismantle NOAA"?
Re: Former NOAA employees built Climate.us to preserve climate data and resources
#213Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. I do remember when they went on and on about how the Democrats and Jews were all Satanic pedophiles and then they elected the King of all pedophiles to stop it. And then they objectively interfered with good faith efforts to police sex abuse for years with false flags and conspiracy nonsense like trying to find a secret entrance to Hillary Clinton's child sex slave dungeon under a pizzeria with a shotgun , and de…
wasn't the "dungeon under a pizzeria with a shotgun" stunt a classic red herring as the accusations were actually leveled against the store next door? I vaguely remember it being along those lines.
The MAGA folks are trying desperately to say they were right all along when the only pedophiles they didn't see were the ones that were actually real.
Re: Former NOAA employees built Climate.us to preserve climate data and resources
#214Earlier quoted context omitted.
No I meant limit.
Well then unfortunately you just have no clue what you’re talking about. The notion that the CIA is “not limited” by checks and balances is beyond laughable. How many people have you met who work there? Ever talked with someone about the limitations (or lack thereof) on their work? I will bet the answers are zero and no. Am I wrong?
I have first-hand experienced being non-consensually preyed upon and experimented on by that organization, and am traumatized from my experience with them.
Yes I've taken the appropriate escalations and saught support from my elected officials. So far, no relief. My experience dictates that most people are quick to laugh and ridicule me, like you and your hostility and Ad Hominem style logical fallacy based messaging. I think you are just a astroturfed style personality on the web and if you didn't mean to be hostile, I hope you know that you certainly came across that way. edit: I see this is not an engagement that is serving me in any way, and is hurtful and abusive over substantive or providing value. I'm going to check out now and wish you luck at whatever it is you seek.
Re: Former NOAA employees built Climate.us to preserve climate data and resources
#215Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well then unfortunately you just have no clue what you’re talking about. The notion that the CIA is “not limited” by checks and balances is beyond laughable. How many people have you met who work there? Ever talked with someone about the limitations (or lack thereof) on their work? I will bet the answers are zero and no. Am I wrong?
I think you are pretty Ad Hominem oriented in speaking with me, and I don't like that. I have first-hand experienced being non-consensually preyed upon and experimented on by that organization, and am traumatized from my experience with them. Yes I've taken the appropriate escalations and saught support from my elected officials. So far, no relief. My experience dictates that most people are quick to laugh and ridicu…
Just like getting into a car accident does not mean we don't put significant efforts (and successful ones!) into preventing such accidents.
Re: Former NOAA employees built Climate.us to preserve climate data and resources
#216Earlier quoted context omitted.
Before I rebut, I want to make very clear - I'm correcting the record because _in the future_ there could be serious threats to NOAA. Crying wolf today when things are tenuous but steady actively harms the community's preparation for when the knives _do_ come out for NOAA. As they have done so many times before, the slashers will point to these episodes of crying wolf as a smokescreen. It's literally their only play.…
> you're cherry-picking issues to paint a significantly more sinister story than what is actually happening. Their budget proposals trying to slash a quarter of NOAA budgets doesn't seem like a cherry-picked issue. DOGE firing several hundred people and taking a while to fill those positions doesn't seem like cherry-picking issues. Seeing them fail to renew important contracts until after the public freaks out about…
Because these aren't part of a plan specifically targeting NOAA. They're broad attacks on government infrastructure. The distinction is important.
> And acting like the things happening at the NSF don't have any relationship to data used for NOAA is another thing. Oh, it's just programs being axed at the NSF, no worries, they'd surely never touch NOAA. I'm sure data about ocean temperatures has absolutely nothing to do with weather!
How, specifically, does slashing programs at NSF lead to "privitization of NOAA"?
> Then why did DOGE happen? Why submit budget proposals slashing NOAA by a quarter??
Because _that's what Conservatives do_ in American politics. They virtue signal to their base and then run away from things as their efforts are neutered. Where have you been since the 2000? The executive branch doesn't set the budget, their recommendations to Congress are ceremonial at best. A cheap and easy way to generate optics without committing to actions with extremely negative repercussions.
Tell me - where are the Republican Congressional budget proposals which slash NOAA's OAR budget?
> Acting like these things aren't happening is continuing to ignore the foxes circling the henhouse. You were seemingly even unaware about the Regional Climate Centers going offline, telling me it didn't happen
Now you're just being disingenuous. You said they were cut - they _weren't_, they were caught in the blast radius of government funding shenangians in Congress along with hundreds or thousands of other programs. Show me an EO or a piece of legislation that eliminates the RCCs, will you?
> Thinking Project 2025 is just a conspiracy theory when they have been actively working towards many of these policy goals all because Trump told you an obvious lie. I'm sorry, but if you're one of the people supposedly there helping to ensure these programs have a successful future and don't see the obvious attempts to smash these programs it makes me even more worried about their futures.
No one said Project 2025 is a conspiracy theory.
It's not productive to waste time with you. You have no idea what you're talking about. But let me be very blunt - _you are making everyone's job harder_ by defaulting to Project 2025 and ascribing motives to actions where there aren't any. The Trump Administration _literally doesn't care_ about NOAA, and the agency has its defenders on both sides of the aisle in Congress who have actively responded to acute crises whenever the Admin's chaos creates them.
As the wailing about "muh NOAA is being privatized!" grows louder, it derails our interventions to safe harbor the agency because thoughtful, constructive compromise can be washed away as P2025 doomerism.
Stop exaggerating what's going on to win internet points.
Re: Former NOAA employees built Climate.us to preserve climate data and resources
#217Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do understand how this isn't an example of what I'm asking for, right? In 20 years worth of history - you can't identify a single piece of legislation or a single executive action to demonstrate an ongoing threat to NOAA? You have to immediately jump to the tautology of "Project 2025 is dismantling NOAA because an article two years ago said Project 2025 was going to dismantle NOAA"?
haha yeah why would i believe something Project 2025 stated, haha silly me
Re: Former NOAA employees built Climate.us to preserve climate data and resources
#218Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you're cherry-picking issues to paint a significantly more sinister story than what is actually happening. Their budget proposals trying to slash a quarter of NOAA budgets doesn't seem like a cherry-picked issue. DOGE firing several hundred people and taking a while to fill those positions doesn't seem like cherry-picking issues. Seeing them fail to renew important contracts until after the public freaks out about…
> Their budget proposals trying to slash a quarter of NOAA budgets doesn't seem like a cherry-picked issue... Because these aren't part of a plan specifically targeting NOAA. They're broad attacks on government infrastructure. The distinction is important. > And acting like the things happening at the NSF don't have any relationship to data used for NOAA is another thing. Oh, it's just programs being axed at the NSF,…
A 26% budget cut proposal and massive firings aren't actually an attack. Sure. Oh its not specifically targeting only NOAA, I guess that's fine then. If they were to dismantle only NOAA that'd be a problem worth concern, but because its tied up in other things too its A-OK!
> The executive branch doesn't set the budget,
Tell that to the Trump administration which seems to constantly fail to spend money budgeted by Congress while spending billions on a war Congress told him not to engage in. How's all that USAID spending going these days?
> they were caught in the blast radius of government funding shenangians in Congress
Continuing to push this lie that even the administration isn't making. They were shut down briefly because the executive stopped cutting the checks by their own admission, not because of a congressional funding shortfall. The government was fully funded in April 2025. You act like I don't have a clue while you continue on with this easily checked thing.
> No one said Project 2025 is a conspiracy theory
Its in this comment thread, just not by you I agree. Strange for you to say such an obviously untrue thing. You do end up trying to downplay its influence left and right though.
> what Conservatives do
If you think this administration is just what normal conservatives have done in past administrations you really haven't been paying attention.
> The Trump Administration _literally doesn't care_ about NOAA
You're right, they don't. They suggest they want to cut about 26% of it. They would seemingly love to never have to care about it again.
> thoughtful, constructive compromise
Thoughtful and constructive compromise about what exactly? That global warming doesn't exist? That anthropogenic climate change is a fraud?
> it derails our interventions to safe harbor the agency
Safe harboring the agency? From what? Why do you need to be worried? What is it that you're harboring it safely from? You've just told me its obviously not the Trump administration.
Quit burying your head in the sand and wake up my dude. The only reason why the DOGE cuts were unsuccessful were because people spoke up. Quit acting like the only way to ensure bad things don't happen is to be quiet about things and ignore obvious issues. If you see something bad happening, speak up.
Re: Former NOAA employees built Climate.us to preserve climate data and resources
#219Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
YCombinator did invest in flock...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
Re: Former NOAA employees built Climate.us to preserve climate data and resources
#220Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with your feelings but 'activists and independent scientists' do not have the resources to maintain that sort of infrastructure over the long term and will also be continually fending off attacks on their credibility. Institutions exist because volunteering has limitations.
Hard disagree. Public funds are absolutely for funding research into things that affect the public on a large scale. That's the whole point. What could be more "general welfare", as envisioned in the constitution, than making sure we are not screwing up our collective home?