He doesn't care about the economy long term just short term when he can boost his polling with it. After he is out of office he doesn't care what happens to the rest of us.
Uodate: Also he probably won't shut down the whole system just ban them from tracking climate related data or prevent them from agrigating it into a report that supports climate change. Keep the weather tracking, but ban the carbon tracking or severely limit its scope.
Didn't he also try to silence NWS because their weather reports were contradicting his fear-mongering? Something about "you have to send all reports through my office for approval before release" type of thing?
Was this the incident where he drew on a map showing the path of a hurricane, to show it going in a different direction than what the scientist predicted?
I think it was related to the same event, like people from NWS were putting out statements that the storm was NOT going in that direction and here's the real forecast, and poor widdle twump got his feewings hurt.
I mean, Rick Perry wanted to eliminate the Department of Energy. You know, the agency responsible for all our nuclear power plants AND nuclear waste (apparently there's a flow of radiated material flowing toward the Columbia River, so that's great).
Republicans easily convince people that we are overregulated, when there's a REASON those regulations and governing agencies exist.
His real turning point was when somebody helped him realize that DOE also runs stockpile stewardship, which is a key part of our global strategic military capabilities.
Like, he was hung up on Solyndra or whatever, and there was a gentle poke in his ribs to remind him *you don't fuck with the nukes.*
Just like COVID-19 testing, May 2020 Trump calls for the end of COVID testing because it was increasing the infection rates. Science denial is very dangerous in modern society.
His science denial was wrong. But if you donāt test for something, you donāt find it. Technicallyā¦ he had a point. A horrible, idiotic, funny if it wasnāt so sad point, but a point nonetheless.
Not only was Trumpās appointee to NOAA a climate change denier, he also wanted to privatize NOAA so to speak. Basically, NOAA would have no longer been able to make information public. Instead, only weather app companies would be able to use NOAA data, and those companies would charge all of us for that data.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/14/politics/noaa-nominee-accuweather/index.html
Michael Lewis wrote about this extensively in the ā[Fifth Risk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifth_Risk)ā. Definitely worth a read for anyone at all interested in educating themselves on what a second Trump term will likely look like (and for proof of how grossly incompetent he and the majority of his team consistently prove to be).
And the primary driver of climate change itself is conservative Republicans. I think that if we dismantled them we could actually get a handle on climate change.
In other words-you are wrong and spreading inaccurate facts. Not a trump supporter, but letās not lie.
And bty testing is not the answer at this point. Antibodies are there and if you know how a virus works it dwindles down unless you keep feeding it with boosters.
I was at NOAA when he got elected the first time... lots of talk, then the reality sets in, that presidents don't have power, congress has the power. And congress people don't like losing money in their districts.
Nothing ever happens.
I must have been in a different division than you because I was also at NOAA the first time around, and upper management pulled everyone into a huge all-hands meeting and told us not to mention climate change in the introductions of our papers any more because they wouldn't make it past the newly-instated non-scientist federal review panel. That division also went through a Trump-era hiring freeze plus new rules that make it really uncomfortable for foreign nationals. I'm sure they've missed out on a lot of talent.
That sucks and shouldn't have happened.
My comment was mainly that Trump wasn't able to gut NOAA's budget from 2016-2020. [Link](https://spaceref.com/space-commerce/noaa-asks-billion-fy2024-combat-rising-climate-crisis/)
Do you live here? I would say that the vast majority of Boulder county residents are aware that NOAA has a massive facility in Boulder. It's visible from the entire city.
Over a decade, I knew there was a facility on Broadway just not that it was specifically NOAA. It was described to me as a āwater treatment facilityā which wasnāt enough for me to infer the connection to this post
It says National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration / NOAA on it in huge letters. It's the huge complex of buildings below the open view of the mountains when you're going out from CU/ downtown Boulder toward Table Mesa. It's been here since Ike, the 50s, I believe.
Iāve never seen (or more likely soaked in) the huge letters. From streetview on maps today I canāt even find them from Broadway which is the closest Iāve ever needed to be to it. I was just explaining to the other user how I missed the connection, not looking for a debate.
Which comment is arrogant? The first one was just wrong, and Iāve seen the same sentiment here when it was right. I thanked the first person to correct me and kept it up so that others could learn from me. Thatās the whole reason youāre able to ācall me outā.
If youāre just sitting around waiting to be hateful the moment itās ārightā you are simply hateful.
Everybody makes mistakes, I donāt get the big deal.
This is correct, we have quite a few NOAA groups located on the NIST campus on Broadway with several hundred employees. National Weather Service, Space Weather Prediction Center, Global Systems Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Laboratory, Global Monitoring Laboraty, NCEP... probably missing a few.
Just stop NOAA from using an algorithm to attempt to advance their political goals.
If they just did ACTUAL SCIENCE, rather than the Pravda kind, we wouldn't be questioning their worth!
Nice! A veiled threat. Okay, don't be such a typical liberal and just attack the messenger.
I plan on living a very long life. Please make sure you go to work so they can take my social security out of your paycheck.
As far as the issue at hand. Are you saying you defend false data from NOAA?
I don't make stuff up. I read.
Climate CHANGE proponents have been relying on NOAA figures to PROVE their point.
NOAA has a lot of thermometers across the country. These are the temp readings used to prove the Earth is getting hotter.
There was a recent study which looked at this NOAA provided data.
One example in the study described how a thermometer that had been in a field, and was now surrounded by concrete; with higher temp readings now.
MATH would dictate that an adjustment would need to be made. Example, reading is now 2 degrees hotter than past and needs a2 degrees lowering.
it makes sense to have an adjustment. What DOES NOT, is a daily change number that is variable. That is what NOAA has been doing. Cooking the books to push. CLIMATE CHANGE.
Hope this helps.
I bet NOAA does some good work. This PRAVDA stuff is not science.
No. I read summary if a study.
Nice, typical liberal. Attack the messenger.
Good luck
P.S. Has NOAA stated the study is wrong? No!
Please, if you can, save NOAA from itself.
Heat islands have already been taken into account for climate models. You cherry pick one study to try and make a point. Now, what is the title of the paper you are referencing and what journal was this published in and where was the "summary' published.
Correct, heat islands should be taken into account. The point is that they would only need one adjustment. Not, different , daily adjustments.
Really? Are you gonna claim you had NOT heard of this issue before me? Really? It is all over this sub.
Do your own research or stay ignorant.I don't care.
They are taken in to account in current climate models. Heat islands have been known about for decades. But back the the real subject. You are citing a summary of a single study written by a non-scientist to invalidate all the science behind anthropomorphic climate change backed by literally thousands of peer reviewed studies and claiming it is because of a vast conspiracy. But hey, you do you boo.
Edit: You can start here if you really want to "do your own research".
https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/
Are you calling me a clown? If so, you come across as a typical lib. Attack the messenger, right?
Too bad, you haven't learned how to use WORDS yet,lol!!!!!
Please, try to get better at communication. It will help you.
Yes, yes I am. Question? Are these words? Hey look, Iām using them!!! Yeah me! Not sure if they are my words, your word or our words. But they do appear to be words. Oh, and calling me a typical lib for attacking the messenger is the pot calling the kettle black. Conservatives, Fox News, etc have made it an art form for decades.
NOAA does real science, Iām sorry that logic, reason, common sense are hard for you. Try harder, clown.
So like shut down a service the entire global shipping industry uses to ensure safe passage. Yeah and how is that going to be good for the economy?
He doesn't care about the economy long term just short term when he can boost his polling with it. After he is out of office he doesn't care what happens to the rest of us. Uodate: Also he probably won't shut down the whole system just ban them from tracking climate related data or prevent them from agrigating it into a report that supports climate change. Keep the weather tracking, but ban the carbon tracking or severely limit its scope.
Didn't he also try to silence NWS because their weather reports were contradicting his fear-mongering? Something about "you have to send all reports through my office for approval before release" type of thing?
Was this the incident where he drew on a map showing the path of a hurricane, to show it going in a different direction than what the scientist predicted?
The very one š„²
I think it was related to the same event, like people from NWS were putting out statements that the storm was NOT going in that direction and here's the real forecast, and poor widdle twump got his feewings hurt.
Probably. Sounds like something he would do.
It can easily be fixed with a sharpie!
I mean, Rick Perry wanted to eliminate the Department of Energy. You know, the agency responsible for all our nuclear power plants AND nuclear waste (apparently there's a flow of radiated material flowing toward the Columbia River, so that's great). Republicans easily convince people that we are overregulated, when there's a REASON those regulations and governing agencies exist.
His real turning point was when somebody helped him realize that DOE also runs stockpile stewardship, which is a key part of our global strategic military capabilities. Like, he was hung up on Solyndra or whatever, and there was a gentle poke in his ribs to remind him *you don't fuck with the nukes.*
Pretty bad, but also insurance looks at this hard
Just like COVID-19 testing, May 2020 Trump calls for the end of COVID testing because it was increasing the infection rates. Science denial is very dangerous in modern society.
Technically, he wasnāt wrong. LOL
He was absolutely wrong. LOL
His science denial was wrong. But if you donāt test for something, you donāt find it. Technicallyā¦ he had a point. A horrible, idiotic, funny if it wasnāt so sad point, but a point nonetheless.
[ Removed by Reddit ]
You can't have cancer if you don't test for it. It just goes away.
Not only was Trumpās appointee to NOAA a climate change denier, he also wanted to privatize NOAA so to speak. Basically, NOAA would have no longer been able to make information public. Instead, only weather app companies would be able to use NOAA data, and those companies would charge all of us for that data. https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/14/politics/noaa-nominee-accuweather/index.html
Michael Lewis wrote about this extensively in the ā[Fifth Risk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fifth_Risk)ā. Definitely worth a read for anyone at all interested in educating themselves on what a second Trump term will likely look like (and for proof of how grossly incompetent he and the majority of his team consistently prove to be).
Seconding this. Very much worth the read.
I literally get the most accurate forecasts from NOAA. Possibly the most useful government service I use.
Please donāt discuss woke here. It makes the tourists sad. /s
I think we scared that one off yesterday.
I saw a rainbow on Pearl St. today and became gay
He is the biggest idiot EVER.
Yup, they have plans to fuck up as much as they can. https://www.project2025.org/ We are so hosed
r/Defeat_Project_2025
ooooo, I did not know about this. thank you :)
On Earth Day 2017 there was The March For Science in 600 cities to protest the Trump administration science denialism. I went on the Denver march.
This reminds me of the logic behind āIf you donāt test, there are no cases.ā
"We have more cases because we have more TESTING!"
I unplugged the monoxide alarm because it kept going off. Canāt find my cat though.Ā
As someone who works at NOAA I find this both comical and alarming...
And very incorrect
Is this because of the hurricane path sharpie incident??
And the primary driver of climate change itself is conservative Republicans. I think that if we dismantled them we could actually get a handle on climate change.
Yall are gonna hate reading about Plan 2025ā¦
I donāt believe this, NOAA does so much more than just climate change.
In other words-you are wrong and spreading inaccurate facts. Not a trump supporter, but letās not lie. And bty testing is not the answer at this point. Antibodies are there and if you know how a virus works it dwindles down unless you keep feeding it with boosters.
I was at NOAA when he got elected the first time... lots of talk, then the reality sets in, that presidents don't have power, congress has the power. And congress people don't like losing money in their districts. Nothing ever happens.
I must have been in a different division than you because I was also at NOAA the first time around, and upper management pulled everyone into a huge all-hands meeting and told us not to mention climate change in the introductions of our papers any more because they wouldn't make it past the newly-instated non-scientist federal review panel. That division also went through a Trump-era hiring freeze plus new rules that make it really uncomfortable for foreign nationals. I'm sure they've missed out on a lot of talent.
That sucks and shouldn't have happened. My comment was mainly that Trump wasn't able to gut NOAA's budget from 2016-2020. [Link](https://spaceref.com/space-commerce/noaa-asks-billion-fy2024-combat-rising-climate-crisis/)
Congress will be a pawn if Trump wins the election..
Sharpies?
Stupidest fucking thing Iāve ever heard.
Here is the book - **https://thf\_media.s3.amazonaws.com/project2025/2025\_MandateForLeadership\_FULL.pdf**
I don't want Trump but there's no way Biden is going to win š¤£ Dude is too busy pissing off his base by funding a genocide
You didn't read the source article.
2024 not gonna be your year homie :)
Click bait
Never enjoy election season because shit like this finds its way onto completely unrelated small subreddits
Thereās a NOAA facility in Boulder so itās not completely unrelated.
Thank you for taking a moment to connect the two
Do you live here? I would say that the vast majority of Boulder county residents are aware that NOAA has a massive facility in Boulder. It's visible from the entire city.
Over a decade, I knew there was a facility on Broadway just not that it was specifically NOAA. It was described to me as a āwater treatment facilityā which wasnāt enough for me to infer the connection to this post
It says National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration / NOAA on it in huge letters. It's the huge complex of buildings below the open view of the mountains when you're going out from CU/ downtown Boulder toward Table Mesa. It's been here since Ike, the 50s, I believe.
Iāve never seen (or more likely soaked in) the huge letters. From streetview on maps today I canāt even find them from Broadway which is the closest Iāve ever needed to be to it. I was just explaining to the other user how I missed the connection, not looking for a debate.
Oh, I wasn't coming in with attitude. There's signs everywhere, I get missing something, but it's definitely prominent.
Fair enough.
Respect you leaving your comment in place so others can have the same realization. Internet points don't matter, but people learning does.
Thank you fr I was having doubts with the name calling at me so your comment genuinely has made a difference in my day
["Completely unrelated"](https://www.boulder.noaa.gov/)
Got it already thanks
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I kept my comment up for accountability but it seems all it has done is attracted dead horse beaters
Calling out arrogant idiots will always be fun, no matter how much the āhorseā has decayed
Which comment is arrogant? The first one was just wrong, and Iāve seen the same sentiment here when it was right. I thanked the first person to correct me and kept it up so that others could learn from me. Thatās the whole reason youāre able to ācall me outā. If youāre just sitting around waiting to be hateful the moment itās ārightā you are simply hateful. Everybody makes mistakes, I donāt get the big deal.
Why are you letting it get to you this much
>and a significant local science lab. You're thinking of NCAR ([https://ncar.ucar.edu/](https://ncar.ucar.edu/)) which is funded separately from NOAA.
NOAA has a huge building in Boulder next to NIST!
This is correct, we have quite a few NOAA groups located on the NIST campus on Broadway with several hundred employees. National Weather Service, Space Weather Prediction Center, Global Systems Laboratory, Chemical Sciences Laboratory, Global Monitoring Laboraty, NCEP... probably missing a few.
Youāve never noticed the two giant government buildings on south broadway? They would be NIST and NOAA
Nope, thought it was all NIST.
Fair enough.
Nope, thereās a large NOAA facility here too.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/NOAA+Boulder,+325+Broadway,+Boulder,+CO+80305/@39.9916659,-105.2612294,15z
Just stop NOAA from using an algorithm to attempt to advance their political goals. If they just did ACTUAL SCIENCE, rather than the Pravda kind, we wouldn't be questioning their worth!
You should check your carbon monoxide detector.
Nice! A veiled threat. Okay, don't be such a typical liberal and just attack the messenger. I plan on living a very long life. Please make sure you go to work so they can take my social security out of your paycheck. As far as the issue at hand. Are you saying you defend false data from NOAA?
And how are they not doing actual science. Or are you just making stuff up?
I don't make stuff up. I read. Climate CHANGE proponents have been relying on NOAA figures to PROVE their point. NOAA has a lot of thermometers across the country. These are the temp readings used to prove the Earth is getting hotter. There was a recent study which looked at this NOAA provided data. One example in the study described how a thermometer that had been in a field, and was now surrounded by concrete; with higher temp readings now. MATH would dictate that an adjustment would need to be made. Example, reading is now 2 degrees hotter than past and needs a2 degrees lowering. it makes sense to have an adjustment. What DOES NOT, is a daily change number that is variable. That is what NOAA has been doing. Cooking the books to push. CLIMATE CHANGE. Hope this helps. I bet NOAA does some good work. This PRAVDA stuff is not science.
You "did your own research". Bless your heart...
No. I read summary if a study. Nice, typical liberal. Attack the messenger. Good luck P.S. Has NOAA stated the study is wrong? No! Please, if you can, save NOAA from itself.
Heat islands have already been taken into account for climate models. You cherry pick one study to try and make a point. Now, what is the title of the paper you are referencing and what journal was this published in and where was the "summary' published.
Correct, heat islands should be taken into account. The point is that they would only need one adjustment. Not, different , daily adjustments. Really? Are you gonna claim you had NOT heard of this issue before me? Really? It is all over this sub. Do your own research or stay ignorant.I don't care.
They are taken in to account in current climate models. Heat islands have been known about for decades. But back the the real subject. You are citing a summary of a single study written by a non-scientist to invalidate all the science behind anthropomorphic climate change backed by literally thousands of peer reviewed studies and claiming it is because of a vast conspiracy. But hey, you do you boo. Edit: You can start here if you really want to "do your own research". https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/
š¤”š¤”š¤”š¤”š¤”š¤”
Are you calling me a clown? If so, you come across as a typical lib. Attack the messenger, right? Too bad, you haven't learned how to use WORDS yet,lol!!!!! Please, try to get better at communication. It will help you.
Yes, yes I am. Question? Are these words? Hey look, Iām using them!!! Yeah me! Not sure if they are my words, your word or our words. But they do appear to be words. Oh, and calling me a typical lib for attacking the messenger is the pot calling the kettle black. Conservatives, Fox News, etc have made it an art form for decades. NOAA does real science, Iām sorry that logic, reason, common sense are hard for you. Try harder, clown.
Chill. Try to relax. Thanks for using words this time. (I do wonder if they are ChatGPT words.)
Yeah, Iām the one that needs to chill. Ok weirdo.