this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
411 points (98.4% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4563 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://slrpnk.net/post/11490832

NOAA also collects and analyzes key climate data

top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 142 points 1 month ago (2 children)

It's completely fucking bonkers NOAA is an amazing organization and delivers so much value on such a small budget.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 92 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is exactly why they need to destroy it, the "free" market can't compete with the economic efficiency of a well run government program

[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 21 points 1 month ago (4 children)

Are there any real private competitors though? The work that NOAA does is only valuable because of the extreme scale it's carried out by and replicating that would be quite expensive.

[–] Wxfisch@lemmy.world 49 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

No, and there genuinely can’t be due to everything NOAA does. I used to work in the engineering group for NWS and there are so many parts to weather prediction and climate recording it’s not even funny. Sure there are satellites and radar, but there’s also over 200 weather balloons released each day across the US, there’s highly specialized software that fills the unique non-profit driven mission of the NWS, there’s advanced weather modeling run on super computers, there’s a whole network of thousands of volunteer observers that record temperature, dew point, soil temps, evaporation readings, and more to support agriculture, and then there’s the outreach both to places like schools but also to support things like amateur radio clubs and weather enthusiast clubs that all provide free observations and reports. Private industry consumes all of that data for free to repackage and sell as a product (they technically add value by tailoring it in many cases or use it to run proprietary models). All of that is just the NWS as well, NOAA does so much more that impacts everything from agriculture to fisheries and it’s so clear that the hard right pushing P2025 have no clue what they actually do. This single move would likely destroy the US position as a global breadbasket, and it’s just one tiny piece of P2025.

[–] EleventhHour@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] TunaLobster@lemmy.world 18 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Oh it gets worse and still only in NWS area. All of the severe weather alerts from thunderstorms to hurricanes are also done by NWS. Not to mention the radio stations they broadcast all of that information on that are also used to help tune antennas and receivers.

This would kill thousands of people every year. And it's mostly red states that would feel the biggest burden of being hurt. It does not make any sense except to acknowledge that the people writing P2025 really do not give 2 flying shits about anyone but themselves.

[–] Freefall@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

It would hurt red states, you say? That happens to be something red states LOVE voting for!

[–] Pra@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

Shout-out to all my nexrad tech homies out there 📡

[–] enbyecho@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

It amazes me that people do not seem to know this, so it bears repeating strenuously.

Without NWS there is effectively no weather data. Oh sure, you have Wunderground's handful of private weather stations with their dodgy uncalibrated data. But anything high quality and worth using in forecasting models comes from the gubmint.

No weather data means agriculture is seriously fucked. Aviation is even more fucked. Shipping is fucked. The electricity grid is fucked. Construction, mining, sports... the list of industries that depend on accurate data and forecasting is massive.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 33 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

AccuWeather has been lobbying for this; Joe Bastardi knows he can't do as good a job so he wants to end the competition

[–] enbyecho@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Accuweather doesn't compete with NWS, they rely on it's data.

[–] doubletwist@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Both are true. And they want the data privatized so only they can profit from it.

[–] enbyecho@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Both are true. And they want the data privatized so only they can profit from it.

I was glossing over the details. To clarify - and I think you mean this - they want the free data from NWS but they don't want that same data to be publicly available. Except that's not generally how federal government data works - by law in most cases it has to be made public. But that's kind of irrelevant in the context of "disband the NWS" at least in the sense that Accuweather very much wants the free ride to continue or failing that to get handed all the NWS resources, which isn't gonna fly not least because other providers would strongly object. IOW, this is all kind of DOA.

[–] BossDj@lemm.ee 13 points 1 month ago

I'm sure the actual legislation would be a transition to privatisation. Suddenly musk and bezos et al a are demonstrating their weather satellites

[–] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 month ago

replicating that would be quite expensive.

Indeed. But; If you can eradicate the free market first, the private market can take over and use high running/development costs to justify high access fees.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

They cannot stand the existence of a good example. They HATE it. This is why they seek to make worse, and then destroy, things like public schools, libraries, and the USPS.

[–] chase_what_matters@lemmy.world 50 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Their goal is to abstract people from the hard evidence being wielded against the most egregious environmental offenders. An educated populace is dangerous to the Republican Party.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

pay no attention to the flaming hellscape and electrical overloads, NOTHING IS HAPPENING OK? Look at the federal weather report - the comfort index is at 100%, there's no problem. Why do liberals have to make up a crisis?

[–] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 49 points 1 month ago (5 children)

Living in hurricane country, I have a big problem with that.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 31 points 1 month ago

Don't worry we can redirect hurricanes with a sharpie pretty easily.

[–] andyburke@fedia.io 10 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Do your neighbors? I am genuinely curious how things like this that seem so often to so negatively affect their constituents continue to be the GOP platform.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 14 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

A lot of this stuff is so awful that if you tell people about it, they don't believe it because nobody could be that evil

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 8 points 1 month ago

"It's really the Democrats that want to do that! You know how I know? Because the media says Republicans are doing that!"

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They don't believe it because they're goddamned morons.

These asshats have no fucking clue what good a government for the people has done. They take roads, electricity, water, mail, weather predictions, communications, etc. for granted. There are no libertarians when the road right outside your house is privatized and the owner doesn't want you to use it.

[–] baronvonj@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago

It doesn't even have to be something important like "they're trying to kill public education." They wouldn't even believe the reporting on how much Trump golfed.

https://www.businessinsider.com/poll-trump-obama-golf-2017-4

[–] riskable@programming.dev 9 points 1 month ago

All ya need to track a hurricane is a sharpie!

Trump used a sharpie on a printed hurricane prediction map to pretend like he knew what he was talking about

[–] HerrBeter@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

God damned liberuls

[–] memfree@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

Tell people 2025 would do this. No federal weather means local counties would have to pay Big Business for tornado/hurricane warnings. We'd pay more for fish because fishermen can't get data unless they pay. Plane schedules become even less reliable AND cost more because the government stops tracking upper level wind speeds.

Look: we want people who get a salary for doing accurate work rather than people who get paid to say whatever the bossman want to hear. Ask people to imagine how it would work if Google, NBC, Amazon, and Fox each sunk the money for trying to replicate the existing infrastructure and then sold pieces of it to paying customers -- such as Allstate, CBS, and Delta Airlines. Everyone else would have to HOPE they were getting complete data and have to wonder what was missing. Noticing record highs and lows would become proprietary and forbidden from broadcast in a way akin to being disallowed from referencing "The Superbowl" unless you pay for a license. How's any of that going to make things better?

P.S. This article is posted to several communities, so I'm reiterating this post repeatedly.

[–] halferect@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

NOAA is awesome and with a cable dongle, some copper wires, a few open source programs you can listen to satellites and decode that to real images, it's real magic.

[–] NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 month ago

For some reason this makes me think of rapidly deplaning and sheltering in place from ten tornadoes out in Chicago last night. Not sure why

[–] toiletobserver@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Who do they think the local weather people get their data from? Where do they think weather says comes from?

[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

They know who it comes from. They want to change that answer from "free from NOAA" to "on a subscriber basis from private companies like AccuWeather".

[–] EmptySlime@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Doesn't AccuWeather also depend on NOAA data? I was under the impression that they basically just parse the stuff that NOAA/NWS puts out and make people pay to have convenient access to it. Am I misremembering something?

[–] LMagicalus@discuss.tchncs.de 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

AccuWeather wants to buy the NOAA network, so they can have a monopoly

[–] EmptySlime@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 month ago

There it is. Yeah that tracks with the general Republican playbook. Sell off any and every part of government that business interests could even remotely squeeze money out of no matter how detrimental it would be for society.

[–] Vorticity@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

They get some, maybe most, of their info from NOAA, yes. I'm honestly not sure what AccuWeather's plan would be if NOAA were to be killed. They seem to have one given that they're one of the groups behind the push to privatize NOAA's work.

[–] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 1 month ago
[–] halferect@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

Next I'm gonna find out the plan wants to get rid of emergency alerts and amber alerts unless you pay a subscription

[–] JimSamtanko@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

He has a sharpie marker. That’s all we need.

[–] Mzpip@lemm.ee 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 month ago

The folks proposing it tend to be ones whose friends will profit from it, and the people voting for it don't believe that anybody could be that evil.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Privatize the planet!