9 ms·
U.S. to dismantle system tracking Atlantic currents that are at risk of collapse
- dinosaur0001 4mo agoI hate this timeline
- boringg 4mo agoFor real. Cant fix stupid. Its so sad.
- gxt 4mo agoAssuming the interlocutor is stupid, at any scale, 1-1 to the whole of american politics probably just highlight that you don't fully grasp their point of view, because then it wouldn't be stupid. You'd be able to explain it to them and get them to see the matter from your perspective. If you can't do that, then you don't know you're right, you might be, but there's no way for you to know, truly.
- mindslight 4mo agoNo, this is specious. I've tried to have conversations with reactionaries on topics that we both are even aligned on. It would always be crickets the moment I deviated from the reactionary talking points. The elusive point of view that is "not grasped" is merely some combination of religious fundamentalism and spiteful destruction. Which are both ultimately just rooted in stupidity.
- boringg 4mo agoSo you are defending the move? Why rip out basic science for no benefit other than to signal that you don't care for it if it goes against your narrative? Seems 100% stupid but I am open to your interpretation.
- honeycrispy 4mo ago[flagged]
- IIAOPSW 4mo agohttps://awakenedcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/shareholdervalue.jpg https://awakenedcompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/share...
- postflopclarity 4mo agobecause it is useful information for the public benefit, and not very expensive.
- ufocia 4mo agoWhat does it mean to be not expensive? How much do all the not very expensive endeavors as up to?
- AuthAuth 4mo agoa spec on the budget compared to retiree support, military and healthcare.
- fragmede 4mo agoDoesn't mean we shouldn't be frugal with how the money is spent. (I think this move is stupid.)
- 3eb7988a1663 4mo agoThe cheapest option would be to leave them in place and stop monitoring. Removing them is costly, but prevents anyone from ever re-initiating the buoys. Like when they told NASA to burn up a weather satellite they did not like.
- steve_adams_86 4mo agoBuoys with sensors, CTDs, and satellite data cost mere millions and are often supported by NGOs, indigenous communities, and even schools. They're a good deal, so to speak. We learn tremendous amounts from them, they provide learning opportunities for new scientists, they provide useful data to the transport industry, and so on. These are not things that are too expensive to maintain. These are things you decommission because you're ideologically opposed to them.
- nixass 4mo agoThis is what you get when worm infested brains lead the country
- nandomrumber 4mo ago[flagged]
- rsoto2 4mo agoDon't worry we're not going to do anything to mitigate their collapse either. Especially not with this attitude.
- wahnfrieden 4mo agoOr our reaction to and preparedness for consequences of early collapse? Is course correction impossible?
- andsoitis 4mo agoMost scientists don’t expect a full collapse this century, but even a significant slowdown would have major climate consequences particularly for Europe and Africa.
- doctorwho42 4mo ago*based on current data... If you stop collecting data, (y)our theories and models cannot be updated. So you end up being stuck in time with what you have already measured. Imagine if in (your chosen profession) you were limited to the tools of 1970 to do the work expected of you. If you work in programming, could you have made an LLM, a complex database, or even modern reactive websites with the likes of cobol and fortran?
- hackyhacky 4mo ago> Tracking the currents isn’t going to have any effect on the currents. That's exactly why I never get tested for sexually-transmitted diseases. I mean, I'd rather not know, right?? /s
- cyberax 4mo agoDon't look up!
- NewJazz 4mo agoOr down. You know what, just strap those vr goggles on and stop looking at anything real at all!
- stldev 4mo agoThis makes sense. Facts cease to exist because you ignore them. I think Huxley wrote that.
- emodendroket 4mo agoThe Power of Positive Thinking is one of the few books Donald Trump has really internalized and it shows in his approach to a lot of issues.
- nielsbot 4mo agoThere’s also the deluded cynics who profit from fossil fuels. Why mess up their good time??
- Helloworldboy 4mo ago[dead]
- mapontosevenths 4mo ago‘If we stop testing right now, we’d have very few cases, if any’ - Trump on COVID19
- billfor 4mo ago[flagged]
- nancyminusone 4mo agoSure, I'll grow up and listen to riffs about how inhaling bleach fumes "gets in the lungs and does a tremendous number" or being exposed to a "very powerful light" are thought by same man above as a potential remedy for same disease with 100% seriousness.
- stldev 4mo agoHey now! The man is _acing_ the multitude of cognitive tests that doctors keep giving him.
- kombine 4mo agoLet's not forget those from the big tech (you know the names) who kneeled before the king.
- Ancalagon 4mo agoWhy not name them? Zuck Musk Bezos Pichai Thiel Add more
- EA-3167 4mo agoIt's basically 'Don't Look Up' at this point, stripped of all metaphor and potential to entertain.
- intuitionist 4mo ago“Don’t Look Up” stripped of entertainment was just “Don’t Look Up”
- Ancalagon 4mo agoI think it was just reality, unfortunately
- andsoitis 4mo agoMissed Tim Cook. Let’s map their names to the companies they run. Then reflect on whether we buy their products: Apple, Google, Amazon, Tesla/SpaceX, Meta.
- DrewADesign 4mo agoMaybe we need a new FAANG acronym for the new American authoritarian-cozy rightward-veering tech industry. Let’s see, we’ve got: Meta Amazon Google Appl… oh
- xgkickt 4mo ago
- rdedev 4mo agoI wish I could find it but Simon Clark, someone who specialized in climate science, had put out a video about how we were only recently able to model the AMOC and it's shifting patterns thanks to this measurement we were doing Edit: probably not this one but atleast tells us why measurement is needed https://youtube.com/shorts/-X5EhUbzLTY?si=_N92PNUiTi3STat6 https://youtube.com/shorts/-X5EhUbzLTY?si=_N92PNUiTi3STat6
- petre 4mo agoYrah probably someone at doge or the dept of war watched that and suggested dismantling it. What's next, closing down the NOAA because it's a "con job" and climate change is "a hoax"?
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- hattmall 4mo agoLook, all I know is DOGE made huge cuts to the NOAA and the National Hurricane Center. And well the 2025 hurricane season speaks for itself.
- cryptopian 4mo agoI've become a big fan of Simon lately. It's difficult to make videos about such a serious and all-encompassing topic without either falling into some combination of doomerism, misinformation, or apathy. He's got a real talent for bringing his expertise to a general audience, and I always come away from a video being clear about what the problem is he's talking about, why it matters but importantly how we deal with it (and how I can deal with it personally, without falling into the "only individual actions matter" trap)
- SilverElfin 4mo ago[flagged]
- emodendroket 4mo agoThis doesn't really seem relevant, nor does it seem credible that only Democrats are ever tempted to use trickery to make crime rates seem better than they are.
- ars 4mo agohttps://abc7news.com/post/report-finds-lack-police-efficiency-leading-fewer-arrests-california/15494042/ https://abc7news.com/post/report-finds-lack-police-efficienc... https://abc7.com/post/george-gascon-los-angeles-district-attorney-lada-misdemeanor-crimes/8674095/ https://abc7.com/post/george-gascon-los-angeles-district-att...
- WolfeReader 4mo agoThe USA is consistently in the top 10 of nations with the highest incarceration rates. Prosecuting fewer "crimes" is a move in a better direction.
- jakelazaroff 4mo agoPerhaps the Los Angeles DA stopped focusing on low-level crimes so he could focus on the gangs running rampant within the LAPD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_Los_Angeles_County_Sheriff%27s_Department https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_in_the_Los_Angeles_Count...
- emodendroket 4mo agoI live here! Could you have tried to at least find stories that supported your claim?
- SilverElfin 4mo agoIt’s directly relevant. You change data collection to present a false narrative and there are many ways to do it. Shutting down the ocean data infrastructure is one example. It presents a false narrative on climate change. The same is possible in other contexts like crime stats. You can avoid crime data collection by creating friction in reporting crimes. Or change incentives to report crime by not doing anything with reports. Or not submit data to places that collect it. And so on. I’m not saying “only democrats” either - they aren’t - but it’s a common issue in blue cities that have obvious crime issues despite government PR about crime rates.
- maebert 4mo ago> Democrats in Congress have said they will “fight” plans to dismantle the system Putting “fight” into quotes here is terrific amount of low level shade for a scientific publication. chef’s kiss
- _bypa 4mo ago"Proffer a strongly worded capitulation" was probably too much for publication.
- davidw 4mo agoOr scientists know how to count and see that one number is larger than another; and understand that that's an important factor in many political systems.
- pasquinelli 4mo agointeresting how that logic only applies about half the time.
- mrguyorama 4mo agoIt doesn't. The republicans are able to stop things a lot of the time because Democrats don't have a strong majority in either house. They can barely scrape together a 50% plus 1 vote by bringing in people who are "Democrat" but for example refuse to allow public option healthcare or shut down of coal plants. Republicans have voters that understand your guy has to be in the seat before you want something to happen. They correctly understand that if you just vote for more guys, you get more of what you want to happen, and correctly identify that the solution to not getting what you want is to get more seats in the next election. I can never understand the shocking lack of civics education from people who get upset at democrats for not having power when the system describes in plain language that you need numbers for the power. When Mitch McConnell prevented the vote to appoint a new supreme court justice, it was because he had that power as senate majority leader. If Democrats had a senate majority at that time, he could not have prevented the vote.
- snaking0776 4mo agoThis strikes me as one of the recent moves by our political/capital class where they think that if they just remove the information that’s inconvenient for them, people will stop caring and let them do what they want. You only need to listen to the bosses who so many of us work for to know that they think climate change is just an inconvenience in the way of progress. Only time will tell if this strategy will work or not.
- dnautics 4mo agoIt's arguably not particularly inconvenient for the us political class? the us has been on a tear reducing per capita ghg emissions (also trade corrected ghg emissions). this has been going on for five decades now (consistently 2.5) independent of whether administrations or congress have been red or blue iiuc us per capita emissions are not far from 1910s levels
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- wildzzz 4mo agoI don't trust the trade corrected numbers, China uses a ton of coal still and is ever increasing in their manufacturing of good sent to the US. The number for the US has mostly gone down due to switching to natural gas from coal.
- dnautics 4mo ago> ever increasing in their manufacturing of good sent to the US. no, factories are closing and workers are protesting due to factory shutdowns in china. if you go to target, most things are made in bangladesh, pakistan India, maylaysia, thailand, vietnam where before they'd all be from china. also us consumption generally is decreasing, and anyways, transportation and direct energy was always the biggest contributor.
- snaking0776 4mo agoI’m more referencing the narrative that climate change is being used as a political point to enforce a global political state which stifles innovation (for example read the Project 2025 document around page 417 https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeade...). They do make some fair points in there but the primary change to the EPA that is being proposed is focusing on decentralizing the response to climate change to the states. In a vacuum where climate change is a matter of air quality this isn’t a crazy idea but the reality is that this is a global issue which is inconvenient if you want to prioritize growth/innovation over all else and the general idea behind climate conservationism is a powerful political force which the whole world is trying to shape right now for their benefit. There is right wing conservation which largely focuses on local, narrow issues (such as whale habitats being used as a reason to cancel offshore wind). There is also left wing conservation which pushes the more global climate change view and more large scale changes such as carbon taxes, increased stimulus for renewable energy, and often more regulation. Multiple things are true here though: 1. A lot of our regulation is pointless and serves to just increase cost and lock-in existing players as dominant forces in markets. This definitely stifles innovation so there is pushback against climate related changes for fear this will continue or worsen. 2. Climate change is a powerful force in modern politics which serves as a binding force for many disparate factions and is creating many grassroots movements. The impact of these on innovation isn’t clear (nor is it the point) but increased climate awareness is certainly increasing pushback against greenhouse gas emission intensive industries such as datacenters (in their current forms until renewable capacity can catch up) 3. Climate change is very real and is already increasing the cost of doing business and being less aware of it isn’t going to help. This will also stifle innovation as costs mount in the coming years. I see this move as an attempt to stifle 2 by hiding 3. It seems like a bet that if we don’t focus on the global issues (like a collapsing current) then much of the political power behind climate change disappears since we are frankly quite lucky in the US to have a beautiful, and largely clean environment/air. Grassroots movements and politically powerful messages are likely an annoyance for those who want to keep doing business as usual since it benefits them to do so. Not trying to make a strong claim that our current response to climate change or what anyone in particular is doing is right or wrong but it seems clear that climate change is a powerful message that pushes for much grander scale changes than most people are comfortable with especially those with strong private interests in ignoring it.
- Eufrat 4mo agoDeutsche Physik, but with more idiots.
- jimjimjim 4mo agoJust doing random evil things for no benefit? At this point it's just wanton vandalism. Punks in suits smashing windows and setting fire to cars. Can anyone here, hand of heart, say "I agree with this decision"?
- attheballot 4mo agoNone will. But hide them in a box, away from where others can see, and they will happily sign a piece of paper that says they do. One so called a ballot.
- andrewflnr 4mo agoThey probably think it's "cutting costs" or "reducing waste" or something. At least the fraction of the motive that isn't just corruption.
- MengerSponge 4mo agoRemember when North Carolina banned sea level rise? https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/12/north-carolina-didnt-like-science-on-sea-levels-so-passed-a-law-against-it https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/12/north-caroli... That wasn't arbitrary, and it wasn't for no benefit. It was so that landowners along the coast could continue to use faulty sea level studies to justify state road and infrastructure investments. This, too, isn't mindless vandalism. It's worse. It's greedy, it's short-sighted, and it's cruel.
- conception 4mo agoYour premise here is i think incorrect. so I’m not claiming any links between nation state actors, and our current administration, but the nation of Russia plans to benefit greatly from climate change, and the opening of trade routes in the Arctic. Having control over Greenland directly or indirectly through intermediaries also benefits them to this end coincidentally. Having another country, also be the scapegoat for the cause of any negative consequences also greatly benefits them. If this is the light you shine on vents, everything seems to make a great deal of sense actually.
- tdb7893 4mo agoWhat really puts all of this into perspective for me is I work in academia and one of my friends works for a defense contractor. He told me the maintenance cost per flight hour of F-35 was a bit more than $40k, which is significantly more than I make in a year as a grad student. It's crazy basic science is what's been the focus of so many cuts while it's so cheap.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- MengerSponge 4mo agoIt's cheap but it's prestigious. Ideologues and fascists hate that.
- KnuthIsGod 4mo agoHow many million graduate students do you need to give the US the military hegemony and political influence over allies and adversaries that the F-35 program provides ? Looked at from a policy maker's viewpoint, things look very different.
- jazzypants 4mo agoIf we have military hegemony, then why can't we open the strait of Hormuz?
- krapp 4mo ago[flagged]
- hattmall 4mo agoThis maybe a bit of sarcasm, but it's actually accurate. The information was so contrived that multiple firms sent physical analysis to observe the strait in person. They all have said that the strait remains active with decreased but consistent transit. Regardless of who claimed the strait was open or closed. It's the reason oil markets are so hesitant to bid up futures contracts.
- dotcoma 4mo agoThat will fix it!
- wnevets 4mo ago"If We Stop Testing, We’d Have Fewer Cases" - Trump
- efitz 4mo ago[flagged]
- throwawaycan 4mo agoAh! Both siding science.
- kyrra 4mo agoA point that can be made is that just throwing money at something that doesn't produce meaningful results can be good to cut. having a bunch of data for data sake doesn't make it useful.
- ImPostingOnHN 4mo agoin order for that point to be made, there would first need to be a convincing case made that this thing doesn't produce meaningful results
- dclowd9901 4mo agohttps://archive.is/fZ9CN https://archive.is/fZ9CN > Michael England, a spokesman for the National Science Foundation, said the decision to dismantle the network, known as the Ocean Observatories Initiative, “aligns with N.S.F.’s wider strategy to have a nimbler approach to prioritizing support for evolving scientific priorities and emerging technologies as well as a deliberate approach to smart life cycle management within its portfolio of research infrastructure.” 1) it's not hard to do your own research. If you're here, I assume you know how. 2) does that answer satisfy you? The bullshitty word salad doesn't surprise me. With this administration I expect incompetence and double speak and am rarely disappointed. I wonder why at this point in time you choose to give them so much leeway.
- x-complexity 4mo ago> 1) it's not hard to do your own research. If you're here, I assume you know how. Assume the opposite direction. If you don't bring the data, then you're not doing your part to convince others on your position. Assumption of "default data" is a significant contributor in the breakdown of communications. > 2) does that answer satisfy you? No, in fact it leaves open more questions than before. From the article provided (https://archive.is/fZ9CN https://archive.is/fZ9CN): >> The $48 million annual budget for the observation network was small compared with the value of the data it collected for understanding the oceans and the climate, Dr. McLean said. - Why didn't aligned charities step in to plug the gap? Billions flow through charities each year, and yet none have stepped in? One or 2 stepping in and still not being able to plug the gap, I can accept. None at all? - If the data is that important, then there should be multiple efforts in collecting it, not just one. Why did everything get lumped into a single basket?
- iqp 4mo ago10 years from now: Climate Activist: The oceans are getting warmer & global currents are threatened by imminent collapse - we must do something! Big Oil: Prove it! Climate Activist: Data gathered between 2016 and 2026 shows ... Big Oil: That's old news! Do you have more recent data? Climate Activist: Well, no, because Trump2 dismantled the ocean observation system in 2026 ... Big Oil: So you have no data to back up your claims? Climate Activist: Not recent data, no, but ... Big Oil: Case dismissed! Why should anyone take action based on subjective opinion, not backed up by hard data? For all we know the oceans could have miraculously cooled & the currents are fine!
- armada651 4mo agoIt's mostly just about getting the data out of the news cycle. If you don't have new data on the oceans warming then there's no news story, so less pressure on Big Oil to greenwash their industry.
- x-complexity 4mo ago[flagged]
- asdff 4mo agoHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Good one.
- x-complexity 4mo agoI'm dead serious. Where are the charities who're supposedly aligned wuth such a mission? Where're the blue states?
- asdff 4mo agoMoney doesn't magically materialize to save things from hitting the floor when Trump has a brilliant idea like this.
- frogperson 4mo agoThe tumor continues to grow, everyone knows its getting worse daily. Still no one dare speak of the cure.
- laylomo2 4mo agoI'm asking in good faith here. If it's so critical, then why couldn't the same data be collected and published by another sovereign nation?
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- dclowd9901 4mo agoOr even the UN? That organization that this administration wants no part of...
- kombookcha 4mo agoI'm guessing you need permission to go deploy a bunch of buoys off the coast of Oregon, and that permission may be difficult to obtain for foreign research projects in the current US political climate.
- doodlebugging 4mo agoI think you may have a hard time monitoring the Atlantic current if your sensors are all deployed off the coast of Oregon so it seems to me that this administration would jump at the opportunity to deploy those sensors off of the Oregon coast. Then they could tell the people that they are carefully monitoring the situation and can't find a problem. Nothing to see here, literally.
- kombookcha 4mo agoThe system measures other currents too, as detailed in the article. The coast of Oregon was just one of the places mentioned.
- Gud 4mo agoWhat makes you think the US is the only country conducting such experiments?
- 4mo ago
- kevin_thibedeau 4mo agoDon't Look Up was supposed to be satire.
- _carbyau_ 4mo agoIt is the answer to the next generation question: How did we get here?
- fuckinpuppers 4mo agoI hope they’re able to pause this before they start destroying it. But like the east wing I’m sure they’ll do it before there’s a chance. Fuck this timeline
- x-complexity 4mo ago> ... “removal of all in-water infrastructure” belonging to the Ocean Observatories Initiative at sites along the coasts of Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and North Carolina, and in the waters between Greenland and Iceland. ...Why is Europe reliant on the US for monitoring oceans between Greenland & Iceland, i.e within European territory & therefore European monitoring? Shouldn't they have their own infra to work from?
- armada651 4mo agoThat stretch of ocean is closer to Canada than it is to mainland Europe.
- x-complexity 4mo agoAll the more reason as to why it should be Canada monitoring that portion of the ocean.
- yoyohello13 4mo agoWhat should we be spending tax money on? The only thing this admin seems interested in paying for is killing Iranians and paying off J6th protesters.
- x-complexity 4mo agoThe tax money shouldn't have been collected in the first place. It should've stayed with the people.
- armada651 4mo agoThen stop using the roads and everything else that tax money paid for. If you keep using things that's been paid for using taxes the government will only feel more entitled to collect it.
- Starman_Jones 4mo ago
- js2 4mo agoHere's a frankly better article from the NYT: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/01/climate/ocean-observatories-initiative.html?unlocked_article_code=1.nlA.cSI9.TphkfL3NVn_R&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/01/climate/ocean-observatori... A few points: 1. The ocean observation system began operating in 2016 and was expected to continue for 25 years. 2. It cost $48 million annually to operate the network. The Trump administration repeatedly tried to shutter it, proposing to cut its funding by 80 percent in both 2025 and again in 2026. Congress pushed back, restoring the money. 3. “One of the real tragedies here is that collecting data effectively at this site was a huge engineering challenge, and it’s not the kind of thing where you can just leave your notes for the next person who comes in,” Dr. Palevsky said. “There’s a lot of expertise that has the potential to be lost.” The administration is, as I understand it, in violation of the constitution by shutting this down. It was funded by Congress, twice. The executive branch cannot just legally not spend that money.
- thrownthatway 4mo ago[flagged]
- anigbrowl 4mo agoOh fuck off. Everything you're posting in this thread consists of rhetorical fallacies. This time, well-poisoning.
- thrownthatway 4mo ago[flagged]
- 000ooo000 4mo ago>What? It’s just data. Exactly! Just like those photos of earth from space are data. Just save the file bro lol it's not hard.. /s
- ticulatedspline 4mo ago> The executive branch cannot just legally not spend that money. Time and time again this proves to be rather irrelevant to this administration. There's literally no consequences for illegal actions and even if they're called out on it all that is reactionary. The system will be well broken before a ruling.
- newtwentysix 4mo agoThe Atlantic Currents are at risk of collapse , or is it the system ?
- cryptoegorophy 4mo agoArticle seems a bit biased. Similarly like some other ones where he cut research funding to then later resume it, with almost no significant loss, but the Democrats cried about it all over like if funding was completely stopped. They always tell one side of the story that fits the narrative. Just to be clear I am against this as well, just the journalism is so filthy now.
- t-writescode 4mo agoCutting and/or other randomizing activities makes planning for everyone involved very, very hard. Congrats, the funding came back that time; but jobs were already cut, people already got deported whose college time depended on it, the professor got axed because the college couldn’t afford it anymore, etc. Stability is worth its weight in gold in some areas. This isn’t that.
- dmazin 4mo agoHave you considered that he has had to walk back the cuts because of the outcry?
- smohare 4mo ago[dead]
- sawjet 4mo agoWe gave up taxpayer-funded sex reassignment surgeries for inmates for this crap.
- SubiculumCode 4mo agoVote next November like your country depended on it (it does), even if orange guy sends right wing goons to terrorize swing districts. Vote.
- egonschiele 4mo agoIt's important to note that thousands of people are giving their time every day for climate change work, doing thankless jobs for very little pay. The fact that the US chose a corrupt man over these people, the fact that millions of people sat out the vote, is a real slap in the face of the people who try to fight this, day after day after day. And many young people seem to have just given up. It's your future, others are fighting for it, join them.
- bondolo 4mo agoJust one more thing that is being destroyed. There are thousands more that you aren't hearing about. If it exists then it must be destroyed. The intention is nothing less than to make rebuilding impossible. If you still have illusions that the US government has not been taken over by a death cult yearning for the apocalypse then you need to put down your phone and look at the scale of what is happening. Legality means nothing; they are doing everything they can to ensure that there will be no institutions left to hold them accountable.
- contubernio 4mo agoA time honored practice of dysfunctional institutions when confronted with a problem is to stop paying any attention to it. Problem gone. It's one of the derivatives of quality control.
- alsanan 4mo ago"Bad voting" has consequences that excede the scope of the term: Re-installing them will be more difficult and expensive than simply dismantling them. These kind of objectively-destructive things should be far more difficult to execute.
- internet_points 4mo agoPaul Samuelson: When events change, I change my mind. What do you do? Trump: If we stop testing right now, we’d have very few cases, if any. Previously https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5733236-gallup-stops-presidential-approval-ratings-polls/ https://thehill.com/homenews/media/5733236-gallup-stops-pres...
- euroderf 4mo agoAny journalist investigating this would be advised to follow the money.
- rurban 4mo agoSo you will jump in? The EU? Russia? My bet is on China
- thelastgallon 4mo agoCarl Sagan on Military Spending and Climate Change: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C6co5qXEE4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C6co5qXEE4 How much money do you think the United States has spent since 1945 on the Cold War? $10 trillion (in 1990).
- deadbolt 4mo agoThose who voted for this: are you happy here?
- eudamoniac 4mo agoNo, climate is perhaps my least aligned issue with this administration. I may end up voting Democrats next time, we'll have to see how bad their platform is again. I just wish I could vote to protect our climate and our borders at once.
- adampunk 4mo agoWhat's your second least aligned issue?
- eudamoniac 4mo agoTax cuts benefitting the wealthy, I suppose. It's not a close second though, I care a lot about the environment.
- adampunk 4mo ago[flagged]
- eudamoniac 4mo ago[flagged]
- adampunk 4mo agoAs opposed to a fine vintage of 6 months.
- mrguyorama 4mo agoHi, I've been here forever. Trump's tax cuts and climate policy is identical to what he did last time. Why did you vote for him if you were going to be unhappy with those policies? If you didn't like him doing those things, which he clearly signaled he would do and nobody had any intention of stopping him, what did you vote for him for? How did those reasons outweigh the damage he does with his tax cuts and climate policy?
- TesterVetter 4mo ago[dead]
- 1970-01-01 4mo agoAmerican science now needs to be tied with a military project so it has very sharp teeth to defend its upkeep. It's possible to track both submarines and ocean health with an all-in-one, billions-of-dollars expensive network.
- insane_dreamer 4mo agoTo be clear: this is not about saving money -- in fact it's expensive to remove all this equipment This is about removing the ability to measure in order to undercut the claims of global warming ("we don't have sufficient evidence") In the future historians will look back at this administration the way we look at the Roman Inquisition who persecuted scientists for challenging their accepted dogma.