White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by tzs » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 9:12 PM UTC

scwoodal wrote: post #23

> NCAR’s climate research may not be the only thing driving the White House attack. It is widely believed to also be part of a campaign of political retribution waged against Colorado for its conviction and imprisonment of Tina Peters, a former county clerk who breached election security systems in a scheme to find proof of fraud in the 2020 presidential election. The state has included the attack on NCAR in a lawsui…

It's also widely believed that is a big part of why he vetoed a bill to fund the Arkansas River Valley water pipeline in Colorado, to bring much needed clean drinking water to rural communities in southeastern Colorado (communities that overwhelming voted for Trump all three times).

Another reason widely believed to be a significant factor is that it would benefit Lauren Boebert's district, and Trump wanted to punish her for siding with Democrats in the House on releasing the Epstein files.

The pipeline funding bill had been very bipartisan. It had passed the House by unanimous consent, and whatever the equivalent procedure is in the Senate.

There was an attempt to override the veto. The House vote was 248-177, which failed because a veto override requires 2/3 of the votes. It would have needed 283. All Democrats voted to override. It would have taken 71 Republicans to push it over, which would have been 1/3 of Republicans present. It only got 35, 1/6th of the Republicans.

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

#122

Post by sdenton4 » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 9:13 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #106

Kapura wrote: 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.

> I deeply wish the democrats had run a better campaign in 2024. No, the damage was done before that. Harris ran the best campaign she was capable of running. We know that because she ran a terrible campaign in 2019, even with all the Obama people backing her. I went to the Iowa primary campaigning in 2019. I saw Harris several times, including at a small event focused at Asians. She’s an abysmal retail politician. W…

Harris was the vice president, and was therefore the closest thing to a small-d democratic choice amongst the available options. Otherwise... Why Harris and not Newsom?

The better choice would have been Biden stepping out earlier and having a real primary, of course.

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

#123

Post by readitalready » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 9:14 PM UTC

otterley wrote: post #65

readitalready wrote: post #49

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.

It's because it's important to make sure anyone in office that supports Israel loses, EVEN IF their opponent also supports Israel.

The job of the voter is to make sure elected officials are held accountable. Remember, the voter decides based on what was already done, not what they say MIGHT be done in the future.

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

#124

Post by SmirkingRevenge » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 9:14 PM UTC

tootie wrote: post #46

Kapura wrote: 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.

This is the classic argument of "only Democrats have agency". 99% of the problem is Republicans, but here we are wishing the Democrats did more. They ran a perfectly fine campaign. Biden passed the biggest climate bill in history. Republicans ran an utterly disgraceful and wantonly malicious campaign based purely on lies and hatred. What I wish is that people voted rationally and maintained an iota of empathy and log…

Murc's Law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murc%27s_law

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

#125

Post by readitalready » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 9:16 PM UTC

jjtheblunt wrote: post #83

readitalready wrote: post #49

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…

> The specific issue that caused her to lose the election was her support for Israel. I'm american and I've never heard that. I've only heard her total unwillingness to be interviewed without a script. Perhaps what one hears varies across the country, of course.

I wouldn't expect everyone to know everything. But I follow all the polls. YouGov are some of the best.

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

#126

Post by julienchastang » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 9:16 PM UTC

Kapura wrote: 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.

> I deeply wish the democrats had run a better campaign in 2024.

The problem is that there was no primary. That really (really) hurt Democrats not only for that election cycle, but for future ones too, where candidates could have made their names known even if they did not end up getting the nomination.

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

#127

Post by swed420 » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 9:17 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #106

Kapura wrote: 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.

> I deeply wish the democrats had run a better campaign in 2024. No, the damage was done before that. Harris ran the best campaign she was capable of running. We know that because she ran a terrible campaign in 2019, even with all the Obama people backing her. I went to the Iowa primary campaigning in 2019. I saw Harris several times, including at a small event focused at Asians. She’s an abysmal retail politician. W…

> the smart choice was to nominate Elizabeth Warren, who is a fantastic campaigner. But Harris was the choice to appease the identity activists. They killed Dems’ chances in 2024 even before Biden’s term began.

And back when we had an actual primary (rigged, with an overcrowded field), Warren was the choice to appease the 'progressive' identity activists who attempted, with the help of Warren, to tar & feather Bernie as an old white misogynist. They all pretended to have some knock-off version of Medicare For All because it polled so well, only to rugpull the concept as soon as Bernie was booted out.

Dems know how to win, but it's against capital's wishes, so they obey accordingly as controlled opposition via illusory democracy and choice.

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

#128

Post by readitalready » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 9:18 PM UTC

jonfw wrote: post #40

jahnu wrote: 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…

Generally speaking, people thought that government spending led to massive inflation, and the republicans have stronger rhetoric around cutting government spending.

That had nothing to do with it. Her support for Israel caused her to lose, if you actually look at polls that analyze her election loss.

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

#129

Post by spankalee » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 9:19 PM UTC

otterley wrote: post #95

spankalee wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction—in whole or in part—of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, involving killing, causing serious harm, or imposing conditions to destroy them.

The persons words fit the definition of genocide.

> Don't do it again

Who are you?

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

#130

Post by rayiner » Thu, Mar 12, 2026, 9:20 PM UTC

sdenton4 wrote: post #122

rayiner wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I deeply wish the democrats had run a better campaign in 2024. No, the damage was done before that. Harris ran the best campaign she was capable of running. We know that because she ran a terrible campaign in 2019, even with all the Obama people backing her. I went to the Iowa primary campaigning in 2019. I saw Harris several times, including at a small event focused at Asians. She’s an abysmal retail politician. W…

Harris was the vice president, and was therefore the closest thing to a small-d democratic choice amongst the available options. Otherwise... Why Harris and not Newsom? The better choice would have been Biden stepping out earlier and having a real primary, of course.

That’s why Biden should have picked a vice presidential candidate who could run a good campaign in 2024. It’s not like Biden’s age was an unknown factor. Biden himself floated the idea of only running for one term back in 2020.