5 ms·

Probably is. NOAA and other gov sources help us predict things like clear air turbulence related to the jet stream. One probably doesn’t want to politicize thos

Probably is. NOAA and other gov sources help us predict things like clear air turbulence related to the jet stream. One probably doesn’t want to politicize those kinds of predictions too much or risk scraping passengers and their dinners from ceilings.

wonnage 2y ago
I doubt that’ll stop the current administration from trying, even unintentionally
ketzo 2y ago
There were a bunch of headlines last week about DOGE firing half of NOAA then rehiring them. I don’t think you should consider anywhere sacrosanct.
- transcriptase 2y ago
  To be fair there have been a bunch of headlines about a great many things, like office closures without mentioning the minor detail that the offices haven’t been used in years, the workforce is remote, and there is no impact on service delivery or staffing. Doesn’t stop journalists from dancing around the implication if it makes the orange man and mars man look bad though.
  - ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago
    Yeah? Is that why this list went from 400+ to 10? https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/real-estate-services/real-property-disposition/assets-identified-for-accelerated-disposition https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/real-estate-services/real-pr... Are these the journalists you have an issue with for reporting on it? https://apnews.com/article/gsa-federal-buildings-doge-fbi-doj-aa123e9c3b12e38c8fa511c2a727f880 https://apnews.com/article/gsa-federal-buildings-doge-fbi-do...
  - guelo 2y ago
    how do you know that the offices haven't been used in years and there is no impact unless a journalist told you? Is there any reason to trust rando twitter accounts besides the fact that it makes you feel better about "your side".
    - dingnuts 2y ago
      he probably just believes a source that didn't turn out to be directly funded by the US government, one you would likely dismiss as not a real journalist I'm all for free media but the legacy outlets currently screaming about cuts are primarily upset because THEY just lost a ton of government funding but that's good because I don't want government run news, even if it comes in a bunch of brand names, and it's funny that all the "reputable" outlets just happen to be the ones with the closest relationships to the CIA and FBI and historically have covered for their worst injustices. no, I do not shed a tear for what is happening to the old government controlled legacy media.
      - DrillShopper 2y ago
        > he probably just believes a source that didn't turn out to be directly funded by the US government One probably sponsored by the Russian government: https://apnews.com/article/russian-interference-presidential-election-influencers-trump-999435273dd39edf7468c6aa34fad5dd https://apnews.com/article/russian-interference-presidential...
        MikePlacid 2y ago
        These days if something isn’t labeled as Russian propaganda it’s probably not true.
    - ForOldHack 2y ago
      Simple. There is photographic evidence, and eyewitness accounts, by a celebrated journalist ego happens to be a friend of mine.
  - croes 2y ago
    Musk is suddenly a fan of remote work?
    - dylan604 2y ago
      Musk is suddenly a fan of anything that directly benefits him even if it directly contradicts previously made comments. I thought this was pretty much self-evident at this point
  - arunabha 2y ago
    I think you're trying to impart a political motive where it can be argued that none existed. I understand that your mind is made up, however consider that the whole initial effort by DOGE was clearly poorly planned and resulted in a lot of chaos. For a journalistic perspective, when events are moving fast, you report what is known at a given time. Hindsight is always 20/20 and no doubt there are some cases like you point out. However, are you sure that those are the only cases? The fact that the govt is scrambling to hire back fired people would suggest otherwise. The desire to impute political bias to everything is not a useful way of viewing the world.
    - ForOldHack 2y ago
      It is a realistic and accurate way to see the politicization of climate science. Bush, and the head of NASA Goddard is the documented and publicized example sans vacuum of disinformation.
  - agolsme 2y ago
    No one cares about the physical offices. It's NOAA employees along with employees from many offices of the executive branch going on social media to talk about sudden loss of their email access or termination notices with no prior warning that's raising alarms.
- chneu 2y ago
  Most of those people are silent quitting or refusing to go back to work. This applies across the board to these firings/rehirings. Why would anyone go back to work for real when you know you're just gonna be fired again?
  - Gerardo1 2y ago
    > Most of those people are silent quitting or refusing to go back to work. Come on, you know you can't just throw that out. Support your claim.
    - roboror 2y ago
      Treating your workforce as disposable results in the best leaving. Blind layoffs is horrible for retention.
    - abduhl 2y ago
      Or at least obfuscate and mask your claim the same way the Trump administration has learned: “many are saying that most of those people are silent quitting or refusing to go back to work” “and how many of those people are silent quitting or refusing to go back to work?” “there is waste and fraud with people silent quitting or refusing to go back to work”
      - Gerardo1 2y ago
        Yep, it's really transparent and I really hate how so many communities and platforms turn a blind eye to it. It's not a productive comment, it doesn't invite discussion, it doesn't add useful information.
daveguy 2y ago
I would have said the same about the postal system, but DeJoy has been fn around with it for years. If you doge it, you can sell a private version.
- ericfr11 2y ago
  US science will go down big time. Big Corp (oil, pharma,.. ) will get richer
  - jacobolus 2y ago
    "Big corp" will be massively harmed in the medium term, like everyone else. The NIH is critical for the pharma industry, and the USGS is critical for natural resource extraction industries (etc.). Blowing up federal agencies might juice profits for a quarter or two, but even that is pretty questionable/risky. If the whole economy goes into recession, many basic resources obtained from overseas get taxed, retaliatory tariffs slam US exports, many Americans lose jobs and whole regions lose industries, etc., it's generally bad for companies selling things. Biggest potential winners are anyone willing to directly pay the President a kickback for massive corrupt payments from the government, anyone facing severe legal liability for past illegal actions who can buy a get-out-of-jail card, and foreign autocrats who want the US to stop protecting its own interests.
    - ashoeafoot 2y ago
      There are no vibrant monarchys or aristocracys or oligarchys. What do these people think everyone fled from Europe to the us for? In a monarchy everything fouls and rots.. look a trumps buianesses, the us is his last casino to bankrupt..
    - mike_hearn 2y ago
      Are you sure the NIH is critical for the pharma industry? Pharma companies generally conclude that replication rates of academic grant funded medical research are so low as to not be worth bothering with. From Amgen: "Over the past decade, before pursuing a particular line of research, scientists (including C.G.B.) in the haematology and oncology department at the biotechnology firm Amgen in Thousand Oaks, California, tried to confirm published findings ... scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 (11%) cases. Even knowing the limitations of preclinical research, this was a shocking result." [1] and from Bayer: "To mitigate some of the risks of such investments ultimately being wasted, most pharmaceutical companies run in-house target validation programmes. However, validation projects that were started in our company based on exciting published data have often resulted in disillusionment when key data could not be reproduced. only in ∼20–25% of the projects were the relevant published data completely in line with our in-house findings Surprisingly, even publications in prestigious journals or from several independent groups did not ensure reproducibility Our observations indicate that literature data on potential drug targets should be viewed with caution If the stream of research that came out of NIH-grant funded work was genuinely useful, venture capitalists would be falling over themselves to commercialize it. In reality [3] [Atlas Venture partner] Booth said that the “unspoken rule” among early stage VCs is that at least 50% of published studies, even those in top-tier academic journals, “can’t be repeated with the same conclusions by an industrial lab. Atlas now insists on external validation studies of a new company’s basic science as a precondition to further investment.” He went on to say that the NIH should have higher standards and do more to vet the data. That never happened. He also said that due to the low quality of NIH output, "there’s such a scarcity of venture firms willing to take on early work, you rarely find yourself having to jump in quickly." That was 15 years ago. There was no serious effort to improve, and VCs are still much more interested in computing startups than biotech. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd3439-c1 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd3439-c1 [3] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1038/scibx.2011.416#preview https://link.springer.com/article/10.1038/scibx.2011.416#pre...
ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago
In the 2025 Presidential Transition Project, a number of members of the current administration proposed eliminating NOAA completely. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/25/second-trump-term-00140488#:~:text=The%20Heritage%20project%20even%20proposes%20eliminating%20one%20of%20the%20world%E2%80%99s%20leading%20science%20bodies%2C%20the%20National%20Oceanic%20and%20Atmospheric%20Administration%2C%20calling%20it%20%E2%80%9Cone%20of%20the%20main%20drivers%20of%20the%20climate%20change%20alarm%20industry.%E2%80%9D https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/25/second-trump-term-0... Based on the way things have been going, that seems to be the goal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOAA_under_the_second_presidency_of_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOAA_under_the_second_presiden...
- chneu 2y ago
  It's absolutely the goal. There has been a push from places like weather.com to privatize much of NOAA for years. Noaa's free information is really good so it makes the playing field a bit too level for private companies. They don't really offer a substantially better product than NOAA so it makes their product less valuable. A few years ago we had a company reach out to us saying they could give us hyper-localized forecasts for our ultra endurance events. After our first event using them I checked their data against NOAA. Surprise, their data was far less accurate than weather.gov. Every private weather service is using NOAA's dataset and then tweaking it or adding their own data. All of them.
joezydeco 2y ago
Too late! NOAA's budget is getting slashed and they're stopping weather balloon launches, starting with the plains states. Good luck with those turbulence forecasts! https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2025/03/21/weather-balloon-cuts-announced-this-week-could-harm-weather-forecasts/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2025/03/21/wea...
- WillPostForFood 2y ago
  That's not what the poorly written article actually says. They are launching one baloon a day instead of two. You might think the article is being intentionally misleading with working like, "NWS issued a public information statement announcing that is is temporarily suspending the frequency of weather balloon launches at some of Weather Forecast Offices".
  - jordanb 2y ago
    50% reduction in the number of observations is a big deal.
    - joezydeco 2y ago
      And this is just the start.
    - WillPostForFood 2y ago
      is it? It is unclear that two measurements a day vs one measurement a day is going to make a meaningful difference.
ForOldHack 2y ago
Dinners were the least of the problems that Bush's admin had with NASA Goddard. It was the climatology, and long term predictions.

wonnage 2y ago

I doubt that’ll stop the current administration from trying, even unintentionally

ketzo 2y ago

There were a bunch of headlines last week about DOGE firing half of NOAA then rehiring them. I don’t think you should consider anywhere sacrosanct.

transcriptase 2y ago
To be fair there have been a bunch of headlines about a great many things, like office closures without mentioning the minor detail that the offices haven’t been used in years, the workforce is remote, and there is no impact on service delivery or staffing. Doesn’t stop journalists from dancing around the implication if it makes the orange man and mars man look bad though.
- ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago
  Yeah? Is that why this list went from 400+ to 10? https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/real-estate-services/real-property-disposition/assets-identified-for-accelerated-disposition https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/real-estate-services/real-pr... Are these the journalists you have an issue with for reporting on it? https://apnews.com/article/gsa-federal-buildings-doge-fbi-doj-aa123e9c3b12e38c8fa511c2a727f880 https://apnews.com/article/gsa-federal-buildings-doge-fbi-do...
- guelo 2y ago
  how do you know that the offices haven't been used in years and there is no impact unless a journalist told you? Is there any reason to trust rando twitter accounts besides the fact that it makes you feel better about "your side".
  - dingnuts 2y ago
    he probably just believes a source that didn't turn out to be directly funded by the US government, one you would likely dismiss as not a real journalist I'm all for free media but the legacy outlets currently screaming about cuts are primarily upset because THEY just lost a ton of government funding but that's good because I don't want government run news, even if it comes in a bunch of brand names, and it's funny that all the "reputable" outlets just happen to be the ones with the closest relationships to the CIA and FBI and historically have covered for their worst injustices. no, I do not shed a tear for what is happening to the old government controlled legacy media.
    - DrillShopper 2y ago
      > he probably just believes a source that didn't turn out to be directly funded by the US government One probably sponsored by the Russian government: https://apnews.com/article/russian-interference-presidential-election-influencers-trump-999435273dd39edf7468c6aa34fad5dd https://apnews.com/article/russian-interference-presidential...
      - MikePlacid 2y ago
        These days if something isn’t labeled as Russian propaganda it’s probably not true.
  - ForOldHack 2y ago
    Simple. There is photographic evidence, and eyewitness accounts, by a celebrated journalist ego happens to be a friend of mine.
- croes 2y ago
  Musk is suddenly a fan of remote work?
  - dylan604 2y ago
    Musk is suddenly a fan of anything that directly benefits him even if it directly contradicts previously made comments. I thought this was pretty much self-evident at this point
- arunabha 2y ago
  I think you're trying to impart a political motive where it can be argued that none existed. I understand that your mind is made up, however consider that the whole initial effort by DOGE was clearly poorly planned and resulted in a lot of chaos. For a journalistic perspective, when events are moving fast, you report what is known at a given time. Hindsight is always 20/20 and no doubt there are some cases like you point out. However, are you sure that those are the only cases? The fact that the govt is scrambling to hire back fired people would suggest otherwise. The desire to impute political bias to everything is not a useful way of viewing the world.
  - ForOldHack 2y ago
    It is a realistic and accurate way to see the politicization of climate science. Bush, and the head of NASA Goddard is the documented and publicized example sans vacuum of disinformation.
- agolsme 2y ago
  No one cares about the physical offices. It's NOAA employees along with employees from many offices of the executive branch going on social media to talk about sudden loss of their email access or termination notices with no prior warning that's raising alarms.
chneu 2y ago
Most of those people are silent quitting or refusing to go back to work. This applies across the board to these firings/rehirings. Why would anyone go back to work for real when you know you're just gonna be fired again?
- Gerardo1 2y ago
  > Most of those people are silent quitting or refusing to go back to work. Come on, you know you can't just throw that out. Support your claim.
  - roboror 2y ago
    Treating your workforce as disposable results in the best leaving. Blind layoffs is horrible for retention.
  - abduhl 2y ago
    Or at least obfuscate and mask your claim the same way the Trump administration has learned: “many are saying that most of those people are silent quitting or refusing to go back to work” “and how many of those people are silent quitting or refusing to go back to work?” “there is waste and fraud with people silent quitting or refusing to go back to work”
    - Gerardo1 2y ago
      Yep, it's really transparent and I really hate how so many communities and platforms turn a blind eye to it. It's not a productive comment, it doesn't invite discussion, it doesn't add useful information.

daveguy 2y ago

I would have said the same about the postal system, but DeJoy has been fn around with it for years. If you doge it, you can sell a private version.

ericfr11 2y ago
US science will go down big time. Big Corp (oil, pharma,.. ) will get richer
- jacobolus 2y ago
  "Big corp" will be massively harmed in the medium term, like everyone else. The NIH is critical for the pharma industry, and the USGS is critical for natural resource extraction industries (etc.). Blowing up federal agencies might juice profits for a quarter or two, but even that is pretty questionable/risky. If the whole economy goes into recession, many basic resources obtained from overseas get taxed, retaliatory tariffs slam US exports, many Americans lose jobs and whole regions lose industries, etc., it's generally bad for companies selling things. Biggest potential winners are anyone willing to directly pay the President a kickback for massive corrupt payments from the government, anyone facing severe legal liability for past illegal actions who can buy a get-out-of-jail card, and foreign autocrats who want the US to stop protecting its own interests.
  - ashoeafoot 2y ago
    There are no vibrant monarchys or aristocracys or oligarchys. What do these people think everyone fled from Europe to the us for? In a monarchy everything fouls and rots.. look a trumps buianesses, the us is his last casino to bankrupt..
  - mike_hearn 2y ago
    Are you sure the NIH is critical for the pharma industry? Pharma companies generally conclude that replication rates of academic grant funded medical research are so low as to not be worth bothering with. From Amgen: "Over the past decade, before pursuing a particular line of research, scientists (including C.G.B.) in the haematology and oncology department at the biotechnology firm Amgen in Thousand Oaks, California, tried to confirm published findings ... scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 (11%) cases. Even knowing the limitations of preclinical research, this was a shocking result." [1] and from Bayer: "To mitigate some of the risks of such investments ultimately being wasted, most pharmaceutical companies run in-house target validation programmes. However, validation projects that were started in our company based on exciting published data have often resulted in disillusionment when key data could not be reproduced. only in ∼20–25% of the projects were the relevant published data completely in line with our in-house findings Surprisingly, even publications in prestigious journals or from several independent groups did not ensure reproducibility Our observations indicate that literature data on potential drug targets should be viewed with caution If the stream of research that came out of NIH-grant funded work was genuinely useful, venture capitalists would be falling over themselves to commercialize it. In reality [3] [Atlas Venture partner] Booth said that the “unspoken rule” among early stage VCs is that at least 50% of published studies, even those in top-tier academic journals, “can’t be repeated with the same conclusions by an industrial lab. Atlas now insists on external validation studies of a new company’s basic science as a precondition to further investment.” He went on to say that the NIH should have higher standards and do more to vet the data. That never happened. He also said that due to the low quality of NIH output, "there’s such a scarcity of venture firms willing to take on early work, you rarely find yourself having to jump in quickly." That was 15 years ago. There was no serious effort to improve, and VCs are still much more interested in computing startups than biotech. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a https://www.nature.com/articles/483531a [2] https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd3439-c1 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd3439-c1 [3] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1038/scibx.2011.416#preview https://link.springer.com/article/10.1038/scibx.2011.416#pre...

ZYbCRq22HbJ2y7 2y ago

In the 2025 Presidential Transition Project, a number of members of the current administration proposed eliminating NOAA completely. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/25/second-trump-term-00140488#:~:text=The%20Heritage%20project%20even%20proposes%20eliminating%20one%20of%20the%20world%E2%80%99s%20leading%20science%20bodies%2C%20the%20National%20Oceanic%20and%20Atmospheric%20Administration%2C%20calling%20it%20%E2%80%9Cone%20of%20the%20main%20drivers%20of%20the%20climate%20change%20alarm%20industry.%E2%80%9D https://www.politico.com/news/2024/02/25/second-trump-term-0... Based on the way things have been going, that seems to be the goal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOAA_under_the_second_presidency_of_Donald_Trump https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NOAA_under_the_second_presiden...

chneu 2y ago
It's absolutely the goal. There has been a push from places like weather.com to privatize much of NOAA for years. Noaa's free information is really good so it makes the playing field a bit too level for private companies. They don't really offer a substantially better product than NOAA so it makes their product less valuable. A few years ago we had a company reach out to us saying they could give us hyper-localized forecasts for our ultra endurance events. After our first event using them I checked their data against NOAA. Surprise, their data was far less accurate than weather.gov. Every private weather service is using NOAA's dataset and then tweaking it or adding their own data. All of them.

joezydeco 2y ago

Too late! NOAA's budget is getting slashed and they're stopping weather balloon launches, starting with the plains states. Good luck with those turbulence forecasts! https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2025/03/21/weather-balloon-cuts-announced-this-week-could-harm-weather-forecasts/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2025/03/21/wea...

WillPostForFood 2y ago
That's not what the poorly written article actually says. They are launching one baloon a day instead of two. You might think the article is being intentionally misleading with working like, "NWS issued a public information statement announcing that is is temporarily suspending the frequency of weather balloon launches at some of Weather Forecast Offices".
- jordanb 2y ago
  50% reduction in the number of observations is a big deal.
  - joezydeco 2y ago
    And this is just the start.
  - WillPostForFood 2y ago
    is it? It is unclear that two measurements a day vs one measurement a day is going to make a meaningful difference.

ForOldHack 2y ago

Dinners were the least of the problems that Bush's admin had with NASA Goddard. It was the climatology, and long term predictions.