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

121–130 of 221 posts

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#121

Post by mikeyouse »

maxerickson wrote: post #65
mikeyouse wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They've also announced eliminating the budget to control Asian carp... billions and billions in economic activity are going to be lost, not to mention so much biological diversity in the Great Lakes. Just an absolute catastrophe.

Is that also a budget action? This describes it as an administrative action to preserve certain business activities in Illinois: http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/03/trump_admin... To be clear, I prefer the plan that protects the lakes.

Yep, the overall program cut by 95%+ in the Trump budget.

http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/03/trump_great_lake...

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#122

Post by davidgay »

DaUR wrote: post #106
nkozyra wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he cuts back on foreign intervention, this extraordinary emphasis on "rebuilding" our military (whatever that means given the relative size of our military) makes even less sense. If you're hanging your hat on the idea that he'll be less interventionist, I'd ask you to consider the evidence mounting to the contrary.

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_...).

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#123

Post by jon_richards »

jon_richards wrote: post #22
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.

If you spend too long trying to convince someone there's a problem, then you are the problem.

I see this was taken quite negatively. The point isn't that you _actually are_ the problem, the point is that you need to realize that they start to _see_ you as a problem.

It means you have to consider what the other person is thinking and not just think "If I just keep telling them and showing them the facts, they'll see the light and come around to my side." Studies have shown that when you show scientific evidence to anti-vaxxers, they reject it and become more entrenched in their beliefs.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#124

Post by nkozyra »

DaUR wrote: post #106
nkozyra wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If he cuts back on foreign intervention, this extraordinary emphasis on "rebuilding" our military (whatever that means given the relative size of our military) makes even less sense. If you're hanging your hat on the idea that he'll be less interventionist, I'd ask you to consider the evidence mounting to the contrary.

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 challenges are not coming to us from nations who are emboldened that our massive military is not 10% more massive. I'm not going to call you a low-information voter, but I'm going to ask that you be a little more critical and analytical if this is as deep as you're going at present.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#125

Post by nkozyra »

mirimir wrote: post #105
nkozyra wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a very different bar than you set just a post up.

Different in degree, yes. But part of a continuum.

Right, and we've already established it's one we'll likely breach in a Trump admin. The margin is just wiggle room.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#126

Post by the8472 »

mikeash wrote: post #59
daxorid wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let us be honest: no they are not convinced. If they were legitimately terrified of existential disaster >400ppm, they would be IMMEDIATELY limiting industrial production and investing MASSIVELY into carbon sequestration and renewables. The fact that ALL NATIONS take half-hearted and half-assed measures to confront what the pro-AGW crowd paints as an extinction risk demonstrably contradicts your claim that "the vast…

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?

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#127

Post by veidr »

nojvek wrote: post #120
icehawk219 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm afraid this might be the wrong place to look for logic.

However, at least it looks like they were able to finish modernizing their website before the budget got the ax:

https://forecast-v3.weather.gov/documentation?redirect=legac...

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#128

Post by wnevets »

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.

> senator wanted to stop them from posting weather online because it competed with "private sector" weather companies.

I wish more voters knew and understood this. Amazing public services have been constantly under attack long before trump so particular rich people can get richer.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#129

Post by CamperBob2 »

daxorid wrote: post #57
ajmurmann wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm not mistaken than the vast majority globally is convinced of man made climate change being an issue. The holdouts primarily seem to be a subset of US Americans. There is disagreement on what a fair solution would look like but the vast majority agrees on the problem.

Let us be honest: no they are not convinced. If they were legitimately terrified of existential disaster >400ppm, they would be IMMEDIATELY limiting industrial production and investing MASSIVELY into carbon sequestration and renewables. The fact that ALL NATIONS take half-hearted and half-assed measures to confront what the pro-AGW crowd paints as an extinction risk demonstrably contradicts your claim that "the vast…

The fact that ALL NATIONS take half-hearted and half-assed measures to confront what the pro-AGW crowd paints as an extinction risk

That's part of the problem. There is no "extinction risk," at least with regard to human life, and anyone who says differently is either misinformed or lying. In the latter case, it's easy to argue that they have an economic agenda that has nothing to do with climate.

Either way, such absurd exaggerations make it hard to sell the real truth, which is that AGW appears to be a legitimate problem that demands action.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#130

Post by exclusiv »

icehawk219 wrote: post #20
BrailleHunting wrote: post #15

Next up: disbanding firefighters, parametics and police. Not to be outdone by shutting down the electric grid.

You joke but I know plenty of self professed libertarians who want nothing more than to see those very services privatized. I know someone who genuinely believes a privatized police force would be the end of police violence because "then we'd at least be able to fight back." Sadly this is actually how a lot of people think.

Yeah that's overboard and I don't think common services should be profitable enterprises, but the notion that you'd have an entity with serious repercussions for doing wrong to the people they swore to protect is not unfound. As it stands now, they are self-preserving entities and collect pensions when they screw up. So while that suggestion you shared is not sensible, we do need a better checks and balance on the police. Something outside of internal affairs, like a BBB at the top of the state department.
Post reply on HN