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

61–70 of 221 posts

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#61

Post by [deleted] »

metaobject wrote: post #43
MichaelBurge wrote: post #38

> according to a four-page budget memo obtained by The Washington Post. So somebody in the NOAA is leaking internal memos to the press. Is it so bad to cut funding to rebellious agencies? It could be a good way to catch leakers: Distribute to every agency head a memo mentioning upcoming budget cuts, and see which self-righteous agencies try to stir up trouble. Instruct the agency heads to make minor changes to the de…

"Is it so bad to cut funding to rebellious agencies?" If the agency provides a vital service to the country, I'd say it is bad to punish the country by cutting their funding just because an employee in that agency leaked a document.

[deleted]

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#62

Post by mikeash »

mirimir wrote: post #51
Apes wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or the person you are communicating to has a conflict of interest and has a strong incentive to feign ignorance. Usually referred to as being "corrupt" for short.

In that case, "communicating to them was not an effective strategy".

"Their strategy is not effective" is quite different from "they are the problem."

Anyway, what would you propose that they do?

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#63

Post by peckrob »

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.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Alley

[1] http://talkweather.com/index.php

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#64

Post by bitJericho »

bobmno wrote: post #48
krapp wrote: post #33

Of course they are. NOAA does nothing which panders to populist sentiment. NOAA can't put steel workers to work. NOAA is not the grit of honest American labor, or the power of military conquest, or the gold of a halcyon age. NOAA cannot Make America Great Again, but a new fleet of aircraft carriers can. So it goes. Tie a rock to a string and hang it outside your window to see which way the wind is blowing.

17 trillion in debt, time to cut back

The military is 60 percent of the budget.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#65

Post by maxerickson »

mikeyouse wrote: post #50
brohoolio wrote: post #36

The cuts are gonna kill a ton of jobs. Blue collar ones too. And some of the US competitive advantage. Science has been driving our economy for years. They are also proposing cutting funding for clean water in the Great Lakes region 97%. Largest source of fresh water in the world and we are gonna cut almost all of the funding?

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.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#66

Post by mhneu »

ivanstegic wrote: post #9

WTF is wrong with this administration and data? Honestly.

It's easy. This administration and the current GOP are beholden to the very rich and to corporations.

Energy companies have made a business decision to use marketing and PR to deny climate change. Denying climate change protects energy companies' profits.

This is all very expected once you realize who funds the GOP.

I don't really get why most media stories on climate change don't explain the motivations behind climate change denial.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#67

Post by ra1n85 »

bitJericho wrote: post #64
bobmno wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

17 trillion in debt, time to cut back

The military is 60 percent of the budget.

It's not. Defense comes in at 15% of federal spending. Social security and medicare combined come in at 4x that amount.

Source:http://federal-budget.insidegov.com/l/120/2017-Estimate

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#68

Post by mikeash »

mhneu wrote: post #58
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.

But close the loop - the reason US Americans don't believe in climate change is because energy companies have paid politicians and fringe scientists to deny climate change. Why do energy companies care? Because climate change mitigation would cost them a lot of money.

It's not just that. There's a religious component to it (only God can alter the Earth so dramatically, or Jesus is returning soon so it doesn't matter, or similar) as well as an ideological component (mitigating climate change can't be done with laissez-faire approaches).

At this point, it's self-reinforcing. One of our two major political parties has climate change denial as a fundamental part of its identity. Lots of people vote for that party because they share that belief. Those who benefit from that party's success are then motivated to spread that belief even further just to recruit more voters to the cause. And as that belief solidifies among their voters, the party becomes unable to change its position no matter how convincing the facts become.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#69

Post by Analemma_ »

Gargoyle wrote: post #56

"according to a four-page budget memo obtained by The Washington Post." Why not share that memo with the public since they have it? How is the public interest served by not sharing it?

The White House is desperately trying to crack down on leaks: https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/03/03/us/politics/03reu..., to the point of demanding aides hand over their phone to check that Signal is not installed. It's entirely possible the Post and/or whoever leaked the memo is suspicious of custom "fingerprinted" versions that could be traced back to the source.

Re: White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA

#70

Post by memmcgee »

Gargoyle wrote: post #56

"according to a four-page budget memo obtained by The Washington Post." Why not share that memo with the public since they have it? How is the public interest served by not sharing it?

Because it could endanger their source. Sometimes different versions of a document are given to different people to try to figure out who's leaking. And having people in the White House who are willing to leak important information to the public is in the public interest.
Post reply on HN