5 ms·

I heard that Trump has given NOAA 100 days to justify their existence, or face heavy cuts. Does anyone know the details? Here is the closest article I could f

by Tempest1981 10y ago

I heard that Trump has given NOAA 100 days to justify their existence, or face heavy cuts. Does anyone know the details? Here is the closest article I could find: http://www.salon.com/2016/11/23/politicizing-climate-change-donald-trumps-budget-could-cut-climate-funding-for-nasa-other-federal-departments/ http://www.salon.com/2016/11/23/politicizing-climate-change-...

smarx007 10y ago
"Walker has hinted that what NASA loses in earth science research could be shifted over to NOAA."
- polyfractal 10y ago
  This gets thrown around a lot, but has two major problems. First, it's unlikely that comparable funding will also be transferred from NASA to NOAA. E.g. NASA will be told to stop earth science research and have it's budget cut appropriately. NOAA will be told to start earth science research, but without the requisite budget increase. So effectively, it kills earth science under the guise of "moving" it. Second, NOAA is not operationally or logistically equipped to handle the level of earth science that NASA is performing. NOAA manages a few weather satellites, but has nowhere near the infrastructure that NASA has, and requires, to manage the existing earth science research. Even if you gave NOAA the appropriate money, they don't have the infra or engineers to keep everything flying. Planetary Radio did a great episode on this topic, but I'm struggling to find it right now.
tracker1 10y ago
It seems like Trump has been doing similar to quite a few federal agencies. I'm concerned with some of the early moves, but it's going to be interesting, I do hope that some common sense prevails. For example, bowing out of TPP isn't so bad.
- stevehawk 10y ago
  Bowing out of the TPP has been hilarious for me to watch. 6 months ago if Obama had done it he would have been praised on nerd sites. But he didn't and Trump did so now it's an awful idea. It's right up there with my fellow nerds demanding H1B visa reform, Net Neutrality, and subsidizing clean energy while also demanding free markets. I just hear Fezzik going "I don't think that means what you think it means..." * note - i support bailing on TPP, H1B visa reform, and subsidizing clean energy
ams6110 10y ago
Why shouldn't government agencies have to justify their budgets and operations periodically?
- burkaman 10y ago
  They should, so why not send out a blanket order for all agencies to do this? Why target only a few specific departments for justification and gag orders?
- epistasis 10y ago
  How about when they submit a budget, rather than as a focused witch hunt? Of course, its not like this political atmosphere would listen to any budget justifications. It's all theater now, it doesn't matter what actual justifications there are, what actual facts there are, or what things actually look like when you spend the time to dive into them. What matters these days is a small number of opinion-makers feel in their hearts, and what they tell their followers to feel with quick one-sentence justifications.
- nikdaheratik 10y ago
  It's called a budget review. It's Congress's job to do this, not the Administration. And it seems like a total waste of time compared to all of the other more important issues the Administration should be covering, IMO.
rhodysurf 10y ago
How about that almost every weather service in the US depends on their existence?
- battlebot 10y ago
  Exactly. The thing that everyone is shitting their pants over is a nothingburger. NOAA once had a verifiable mission. The problem with government agencies is mission creep--they all got on the "climate change" bandwagon because that's where the bucks were. That is now over.
  - kurthr 10y ago
    I don't think that sentence means what you think it means. When we get rid of NOAA you can forget about Hurricane warnings... and since they are probably "alternative facts" you can let people die... or alternatively they "go to heaven". How about, you can't have good predictive models of future events, if you don't know how to model or you don't use the "big data" of past events. Oh, but the "big bucks" are in climate change? That must be what they do in Silicon Valley and Manhattan? /snark>
  - Diederich 10y ago
    Citation needed.
  - burkaman 10y ago
    The NOAA's original mission: > We face immediate and compelling needs for better protection of life and property from natural hazards, and for a better understanding of the total environment-an understanding which will enable us more effectively to monitor and predict its actions, and ultimately, perhaps to exercise some degree of control over them. > [...] > I expect it to maintain continuing and close liaison with the new Environmental Protection Agency and the Council on Environmental Quality as part of an effort to ensure that environmental questions are dealt with in their totality and that they benefit from the full range of the government's technical and human resources. - http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=2575& http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=2575& This clearly covers climate change, there's no mission creep.

smarx007 10y ago

"Walker has hinted that what NASA loses in earth science research could be shifted over to NOAA."

polyfractal 10y ago
This gets thrown around a lot, but has two major problems. First, it's unlikely that comparable funding will also be transferred from NASA to NOAA. E.g. NASA will be told to stop earth science research and have it's budget cut appropriately. NOAA will be told to start earth science research, but without the requisite budget increase. So effectively, it kills earth science under the guise of "moving" it. Second, NOAA is not operationally or logistically equipped to handle the level of earth science that NASA is performing. NOAA manages a few weather satellites, but has nowhere near the infrastructure that NASA has, and requires, to manage the existing earth science research. Even if you gave NOAA the appropriate money, they don't have the infra or engineers to keep everything flying. Planetary Radio did a great episode on this topic, but I'm struggling to find it right now.

tracker1 10y ago

It seems like Trump has been doing similar to quite a few federal agencies. I'm concerned with some of the early moves, but it's going to be interesting, I do hope that some common sense prevails. For example, bowing out of TPP isn't so bad.

stevehawk 10y ago
Bowing out of the TPP has been hilarious for me to watch. 6 months ago if Obama had done it he would have been praised on nerd sites. But he didn't and Trump did so now it's an awful idea. It's right up there with my fellow nerds demanding H1B visa reform, Net Neutrality, and subsidizing clean energy while also demanding free markets. I just hear Fezzik going "I don't think that means what you think it means..." * note - i support bailing on TPP, H1B visa reform, and subsidizing clean energy

ams6110 10y ago

Why shouldn't government agencies have to justify their budgets and operations periodically?

burkaman 10y ago
They should, so why not send out a blanket order for all agencies to do this? Why target only a few specific departments for justification and gag orders?
epistasis 10y ago
How about when they submit a budget, rather than as a focused witch hunt? Of course, its not like this political atmosphere would listen to any budget justifications. It's all theater now, it doesn't matter what actual justifications there are, what actual facts there are, or what things actually look like when you spend the time to dive into them. What matters these days is a small number of opinion-makers feel in their hearts, and what they tell their followers to feel with quick one-sentence justifications.
nikdaheratik 10y ago
It's called a budget review. It's Congress's job to do this, not the Administration. And it seems like a total waste of time compared to all of the other more important issues the Administration should be covering, IMO.

rhodysurf 10y ago

How about that almost every weather service in the US depends on their existence?

battlebot 10y ago
Exactly. The thing that everyone is shitting their pants over is a nothingburger. NOAA once had a verifiable mission. The problem with government agencies is mission creep--they all got on the "climate change" bandwagon because that's where the bucks were. That is now over.
- kurthr 10y ago
  I don't think that sentence means what you think it means. When we get rid of NOAA you can forget about Hurricane warnings... and since they are probably "alternative facts" you can let people die... or alternatively they "go to heaven". How about, you can't have good predictive models of future events, if you don't know how to model or you don't use the "big data" of past events. Oh, but the "big bucks" are in climate change? That must be what they do in Silicon Valley and Manhattan? /snark>
- Diederich 10y ago
  Citation needed.
- burkaman 10y ago
  The NOAA's original mission: > We face immediate and compelling needs for better protection of life and property from natural hazards, and for a better understanding of the total environment-an understanding which will enable us more effectively to monitor and predict its actions, and ultimately, perhaps to exercise some degree of control over them. > [...] > I expect it to maintain continuing and close liaison with the new Environmental Protection Agency and the Council on Environmental Quality as part of an effort to ensure that environmental questions are dealt with in their totality and that they benefit from the full range of the government's technical and human resources. - http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=2575& http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=2575& This clearly covers climate change, there's no mission creep.