3 ms·

This is part of Project 2025 to destroy the NOAA. [0] > Break up the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. > "fully commercialize" the National Wea

This is part of Project 2025 to destroy the NOAA. [0] > Break up the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. > "fully commercialize" the National Weather Service's forecasting operations.[1] [0] https://www.project2025.observer/?search=NOAA https://www.project2025.observer/?search=NOAA [1] https://www.project2025.observer/?search=Weather https://www.project2025.observer/?search=Weather

ivape 1y ago
What in the actual fuck. I can’t believe they are actually doing all those little petty things.
- nemomarx 1y ago
  Genuine - did you think it was exaggerated in the media or that they wouldn't? A lot of people seem to have not taken it seriously around 2023, even though it was a very detailed plan with legal strategies, implementations and bills, etc in there.
  - righthand 1y ago
    A lot of people didn’t take it seriously because the RNC lied about distancing themselves from the Project 2025, which is a meaningless statement that even Democrats believed. It doesn’t really matter if the RNC distances themselves though does it?
  - ivape 1y ago
    They say all cynics used to be idealist. That’s another way of saying the idealist and cynic have the same essence. The cynic can actually think “oh that project 2025 stuff, that’s just red meat for their base, they went actually do it”, but that’s because neither the cynic nor the idealist can face reality (remember, the cynic and idealist transform between each other). The horror of reality is the raw hard reality, and there’s no cynicism or idealism that can prepare you for it - both were always a coping mechanism.
- righthand 1y ago
  Yes as warned and ignored.
  - mptest 1y ago
    Literally had this report for years and literally heard the current president praise and endorse it on a hot mic. The fact that, presumably, educated people, are still acting surprised (or worse, legitimately are ignorant) when the reic-i mean presidency was explicitly planned out, in a commissioned by the wealthy, public to all, report by the most connected conservative think tank in the country.
- TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
  They're not just petty, they're wildly impractical. You can't privatise NOAA and the services it offers. It cannot work at an equivalent level as a private service. Its effectiveness relies on being able to decide what's valuable in purely scientific terms, and those terms don't align with short-term corporate greed. But if you ask these cranks what NOAA actually does, they'll have no clue. They're not just evil, they're stupid - the smallest, most banal bureaucrats, cosplaying radicals.
  - kelnos 1y ago
    They're not trying to privatize NOAA; they're trying to shut it down. NWS is what they're trying to privatize.
    - righthand 1y ago
      Yes the conflation is my bad because I think this move is relative to NWS privatization, which is what might strike most people. You can’t have the government predicting and tracking major weather events and issues, those are the biggest datasets to sell access too. For other NOAA fallout effects in the government, a Potus wouldn’t have to rob from the FEMA funds if there’s nothing for FEMA to prepare for, in that FEMA cannot say we need to spend money to help flooding in Texas or hurricane damage in Florida. No cancel that and put that money into the tax break or 1% monetary “business investment” funnel fund. [0] [1] [0] https://www.project2025.observer/?search=flood https://www.project2025.observer/?search=flood [1] https://www.project2025.observer/?search=Fema&sort=agency-desc&agencies=Dept.+of+Homeland+Security https://www.project2025.observer/?search=Fema&sort=agency-de...
  - tokai 1y ago
    >It cannot work [...] as a private service But with public contracts it can be a very effective way to line ones pockets with tax payer money.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
mtmail 1y ago
One of arguments seems to be based on climate change denial "Together, these [six main offices of NOAS] form a colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity. This industry’s mission emphasis on prediction and management seems designed around the fatal conceit of planning for the unplannable" "Scientific agencies like NOAA are vulnerable to obstructionism of an Administration’s aims if political appointees are not wholly in sync with Administration policy. Particular attention must be paid to appointments in this area."
- sorcerer-mar 1y ago
  > "Scientific agencies like NOAA are vulnerable to obstructionism of an Administration’s aims if political appointees are not wholly in sync with Administration policy. Particular attention must be paid to appointments in this area." Absolutely mind-boggling that someone can put that in writing with a straight face.
- const_cast 1y ago
  > climate change alarm industry Ah yes, that very infamous industry of selling... alarm... for climate change. As opposed to Small Oil, which we all know is a very tiny industry that doesn't influence anything.
conradev 1y ago
A lot of very specific things in the original source: https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf#page=706 https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeade... I found this one funny: Overlap exists between the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Overly simplified, the NMFS handles saltwater species while the Fish and Wildlife Service focuses on fresh water. The goals of these two agencies should be streamlined. Right next to Scientific agencies like NOAA are vulnerable to obstructionism of an Administration’s aims if political appointees are not wholly in sync with Administration policy. Particular attention must be paid to appointments in this area. Yikes.

ivape 1y ago

What in the actual fuck. I can’t believe they are actually doing all those little petty things.

nemomarx 1y ago
Genuine - did you think it was exaggerated in the media or that they wouldn't? A lot of people seem to have not taken it seriously around 2023, even though it was a very detailed plan with legal strategies, implementations and bills, etc in there.
- righthand 1y ago
  A lot of people didn’t take it seriously because the RNC lied about distancing themselves from the Project 2025, which is a meaningless statement that even Democrats believed. It doesn’t really matter if the RNC distances themselves though does it?
- ivape 1y ago
  They say all cynics used to be idealist. That’s another way of saying the idealist and cynic have the same essence. The cynic can actually think “oh that project 2025 stuff, that’s just red meat for their base, they went actually do it”, but that’s because neither the cynic nor the idealist can face reality (remember, the cynic and idealist transform between each other). The horror of reality is the raw hard reality, and there’s no cynicism or idealism that can prepare you for it - both were always a coping mechanism.
righthand 1y ago
Yes as warned and ignored.
- mptest 1y ago
  Literally had this report for years and literally heard the current president praise and endorse it on a hot mic. The fact that, presumably, educated people, are still acting surprised (or worse, legitimately are ignorant) when the reic-i mean presidency was explicitly planned out, in a commissioned by the wealthy, public to all, report by the most connected conservative think tank in the country.
TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
They're not just petty, they're wildly impractical. You can't privatise NOAA and the services it offers. It cannot work at an equivalent level as a private service. Its effectiveness relies on being able to decide what's valuable in purely scientific terms, and those terms don't align with short-term corporate greed. But if you ask these cranks what NOAA actually does, they'll have no clue. They're not just evil, they're stupid - the smallest, most banal bureaucrats, cosplaying radicals.
- kelnos 1y ago
  They're not trying to privatize NOAA; they're trying to shut it down. NWS is what they're trying to privatize.
  - righthand 1y ago
    Yes the conflation is my bad because I think this move is relative to NWS privatization, which is what might strike most people. You can’t have the government predicting and tracking major weather events and issues, those are the biggest datasets to sell access too. For other NOAA fallout effects in the government, a Potus wouldn’t have to rob from the FEMA funds if there’s nothing for FEMA to prepare for, in that FEMA cannot say we need to spend money to help flooding in Texas or hurricane damage in Florida. No cancel that and put that money into the tax break or 1% monetary “business investment” funnel fund. [0] [1] [0] https://www.project2025.observer/?search=flood https://www.project2025.observer/?search=flood [1] https://www.project2025.observer/?search=Fema&sort=agency-desc&agencies=Dept.+of+Homeland+Security https://www.project2025.observer/?search=Fema&sort=agency-de...
- tokai 1y ago
  >It cannot work [...] as a private service But with public contracts it can be a very effective way to line ones pockets with tax payer money.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

mtmail 1y ago

One of arguments seems to be based on climate change denial "Together, these [six main offices of NOAS] form a colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future U.S. prosperity. This industry’s mission emphasis on prediction and management seems designed around the fatal conceit of planning for the unplannable" "Scientific agencies like NOAA are vulnerable to obstructionism of an Administration’s aims if political appointees are not wholly in sync with Administration policy. Particular attention must be paid to appointments in this area."

sorcerer-mar 1y ago
> "Scientific agencies like NOAA are vulnerable to obstructionism of an Administration’s aims if political appointees are not wholly in sync with Administration policy. Particular attention must be paid to appointments in this area." Absolutely mind-boggling that someone can put that in writing with a straight face.
const_cast 1y ago
> climate change alarm industry Ah yes, that very infamous industry of selling... alarm... for climate change. As opposed to Small Oil, which we all know is a very tiny industry that doesn't influence anything.

conradev 1y ago

A lot of very specific things in the original source: https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf#page=706 https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeade... I found this one funny: Overlap exists between the National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Overly simplified, the NMFS handles saltwater species while the Fish and Wildlife Service focuses on fresh water. The goals of these two agencies should be streamlined. Right next to Scientific agencies like NOAA are vulnerable to obstructionism of an Administration’s aims if political appointees are not wholly in sync with Administration policy. Particular attention must be paid to appointments in this area. Yikes.