4 ms·

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 a

by peckrob 10y ago

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Alley [1] http://talkweather.com/index.php http://talkweather.com/index.php

exclusiv 10y ago
Is it the federal governments job to invest in protecting people that knowingly live in dangerous areas though? Not saying you shouldn't live there, but if you have a known risk and your local government and citizens cannot manage that risk - why should other citizens across the country pay for that? I understand those services were being delivered and now there might be a gap which is worrisome, but can it be solved at the state level? Or perhaps a coalition of states in the area? Is the NWS the only capable source of safety related weather information?
- 1_2__3 10y ago
  Did you ask for an example for honest debate, or to have a straw man you could pick apart? Because it seems like it's the latter. You're arguing his example and ignoring the larger point (likely intentionally).
  - exclusiv 10y ago
    Honest. I was pretty clear that I think it's a state issue but was interested in hearing whether it's feasible for the states to handle. If it isn't, then I could see that being a valid justification as a federal investment which is undergoing cuts that may affect the service.
    - rabidrat 10y ago
      Every state has weather that can be devastating; also weather does not usually confine itself to state boundaries.
      - exclusiv 10y ago
        I'm not sure what your point is. Is it that since every state benefits from NOAA data it's a sensible investment federally? What if a state requires 5x as many resources as another state? We already have a scenario where southern states draw a lot more than they contribute. We enable states to avoid managing their own citizen's welfare. A lot of people don't want to pay for other people to live in known tornado alleys, just like those people wouldn't want to pay for people to live on fault lines overlooking the ocean or in flood plains.
        scriptkiddy 10y ago
        Let me put it to you this way: There is no place to live that is totally safe from bad weather. It is in the best interest of every citizen of the United States to pay for climate and weather modeling as disastrous weather can have massive impact on the economy. Also, from a moral standpoint, I personally don't mind shelling out some money to try and keep people safe. As to your point about people living in areas where weather tends to be statistically more dangerous: If the government came to your house and forced you to leave, how would you feel about that?
        exclusiv 10y ago
        Is the NOAA the only entity that could provide this data? Nobody is suggesting forcing people to leave, but there are people that knowingly live in places that are drastically more dangerous just like there are a ton of people that decide to not take responsibility for their own health which creates a burden on everyone. I'm just suggesting that those local governments should take more responsibility. Or people pay extra for insurance. Some areas are so risky you can't even buy insurance to protect your home. So maybe those states should come up with a strategy rather than let the whole country pay.
- tasty_freeze 10y ago
  The people who live in Manhattan know that they are a prime target for terrorists. Is it the government's job to invest in protecting those people because it was their choice to live and work in Manhattan? /s

by peckrob 10y ago

exclusiv 10y ago

Is it the federal governments job to invest in protecting people that knowingly live in dangerous areas though? Not saying you shouldn't live there, but if you have a known risk and your local government and citizens cannot manage that risk - why should other citizens across the country pay for that? I understand those services were being delivered and now there might be a gap which is worrisome, but can it be solved at the state level? Or perhaps a coalition of states in the area? Is the NWS the only capable source of safety related weather information?

1_2__3 10y ago
Did you ask for an example for honest debate, or to have a straw man you could pick apart? Because it seems like it's the latter. You're arguing his example and ignoring the larger point (likely intentionally).
- exclusiv 10y ago
  Honest. I was pretty clear that I think it's a state issue but was interested in hearing whether it's feasible for the states to handle. If it isn't, then I could see that being a valid justification as a federal investment which is undergoing cuts that may affect the service.
  - rabidrat 10y ago
    Every state has weather that can be devastating; also weather does not usually confine itself to state boundaries.
    - exclusiv 10y ago
      I'm not sure what your point is. Is it that since every state benefits from NOAA data it's a sensible investment federally? What if a state requires 5x as many resources as another state? We already have a scenario where southern states draw a lot more than they contribute. We enable states to avoid managing their own citizen's welfare. A lot of people don't want to pay for other people to live in known tornado alleys, just like those people wouldn't want to pay for people to live on fault lines overlooking the ocean or in flood plains.
      - scriptkiddy 10y ago
        Let me put it to you this way: There is no place to live that is totally safe from bad weather. It is in the best interest of every citizen of the United States to pay for climate and weather modeling as disastrous weather can have massive impact on the economy. Also, from a moral standpoint, I personally don't mind shelling out some money to try and keep people safe. As to your point about people living in areas where weather tends to be statistically more dangerous: If the government came to your house and forced you to leave, how would you feel about that?
        exclusiv 10y ago
        Is the NOAA the only entity that could provide this data? Nobody is suggesting forcing people to leave, but there are people that knowingly live in places that are drastically more dangerous just like there are a ton of people that decide to not take responsibility for their own health which creates a burden on everyone. I'm just suggesting that those local governments should take more responsibility. Or people pay extra for insurance. Some areas are so risky you can't even buy insurance to protect your home. So maybe those states should come up with a strategy rather than let the whole country pay.
tasty_freeze 10y ago
The people who live in Manhattan know that they are a prime target for terrorists. Is it the government's job to invest in protecting those people because it was their choice to live and work in Manhattan? /s