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

111–120 of 221 posts

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#111

Post by bitshiffed »

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.

The really absurd part is that they still wanted that data provided to these private companies from the NWS, just not available to the public.

Almost all of these companies simply regurgitate NWS information pretending it's their own anyway.

Forecasts are fuzzy enough that they may play in that area; but serious things like severe weather warnings only come from the NWS.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#112

Post by wil421 »

bitshiffed wrote: post #111
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.

The really absurd part is that they still wanted that data provided to these private companies from the NWS, just not available to the public. Almost all of these companies simply regurgitate NWS information pretending it's their own anyway. Forecasts are fuzzy enough that they may play in that area; but serious things like severe weather warnings only come from the NWS.

A friend of mine was an intern at CNN. One of his jobs was to look at all the NWS weather alerts and forecasts. They would prepare it for the reporters to read and report about. He had to get to work at 4am every morning to complete it before the morning shows.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#113

Post by akhilcacharya »

pauloday wrote: post #13
ivanstegic wrote: post #9

WTF is wrong with this administration and data? Honestly.

Well, it's easier to lie about things when there's not any hard data available, and they do seem to lie a lot.

They do it even when there's data available, they don't care either way I think.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#114

Post by chasing »

pasbesoin wrote: post #102

Those of use who care about these things are a bit screwed, in that the mid-terms put so many more Democratic seats in play than Republican. And the Republican majority knows it owes a significant part of its current position to Trump -- and his acive base. Nonetheless, if you don't want science and reason and at least a best-effort at environmental and resource management to go out the window, NOW is the time to com…

> Those of use who care about these things are a bit screwed, in that the mid-terms put so many more Democratic seats in play than Republican.

Maybe in the Senate, but not in the House! Get out there and find some Democrats in tight districts to support!

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#115

Post by hota_mazi »

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.

Since it's a `.gov`, its days are probably numbered as well.

Enjoy while it lasts.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#116

Post by NotSammyHagar »

jacquesm wrote: post #47
wiggyslim wrote: post #25

Makes sense when the powers that be think climate change is made up, in fact maybe they think the climate is made up. Why fund an agency that spends money on something that does not exist?

They don't think that climate change is made up. They're just trying to stuff their piggy banks before the bill is presented.

No, I think they do think it is made up.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#117

Post by exclusiv »

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.

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 global warming as an example while being skeptical of the claims and modeling the environmentalists make.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#118

Post by exclusiv »

peckrob wrote: post #63
coss wrote: post #5

Just playing devil's advocate can someone articulate what kind of value we will lose as a society?

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 at the state level? Or perhaps a coalition of states in the area? Is the NWS the only capable source of safety related weather information?

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#119

Post by dawnerd »

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.

The NWS regional twitter accounts are also a great source and many will even talk and answer questions. The Portland team is really on their game, especially that last ice/snow storm we had.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#120

Post by nojvek »

icehawk219 wrote: post #16
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.

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?
Post reply on HN