3 ms·
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 ser
by 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 agoThey're not trying to privatize NOAA; they're trying to shut it down. NWS is what they're trying to privatize.
- righthand 1y agoYes 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.