Comment by vel0city | Hacker News Reader

Comment by vel0city | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> you're cherry-picking issues to paint a significantly more sinister story than what is actually happening.

Their budget proposals trying to slash a quarter of NOAA budgets doesn't seem like a cherry-picked issue. DOGE firing several hundred people and taking a while to fill those positions doesn't seem like cherry-picking issues. Seeing them fail to renew important contracts until after the public freaks out about it doesn't seem like cherry-picking issues.

And acting like the things happening at the NSF don't have any relationship to data used for NOAA is another thing. Oh, it's just programs being axed at the NSF, no worries, they'd surely never touch NOAA. I'm sure data about ocean temperatures has absolutely nothing to do with weather!

You see "the government is dysfunctional and Congress is ignoring its oversight" and yet that isn't an additional concern about the future of these programs, even though you understand the small amount of congressional oversight is the only thing that spared NOAA from massive cuts. What's guaranteeing this congressional oversight doesn't get worse? It's the only real backstop we seem to have and it's track record recently is abysmal, but you're telling me it's all just roses and sunshine!

> conservatives don't actually care about NOAA

Then why did DOGE happen? Why submit budget proposals slashing NOAA by a quarter??

Acting like these things aren't happening is continuing to ignore the foxes circling the henhouse. You were seemingly even unaware about the Regional Climate Centers going offline, telling me it didn't happen. Not understanding that their rapid hiring recently is because of massive staffing shortages, shortages mostly inflicted by this administration. Thinking Project 2025 is just a conspiracy theory when they have been actively working towards many of these policy goals all because Trump told you an obvious lie. I'm sorry, but if you're one of the people supposedly there helping to ensure these programs have a successful future and don't see the obvious attempts to smash these programs it makes me even more worried about their futures.

Also, you state:

> Because of funding lapses during the _government shutdown_.

This is false! There wasn't a government shutdown at the time! The government shutdown happened from October to November but the climate centers going dark happened in April! Is April between October and November?

The centers went offline because the administration chose to delay reviewing the contracts. That was this administration's official position on the story. You're inventing a government shutdown out of whole cloth, its not even their own excuse.

> You do realize that the NWS was understaffed _before_ the administration and the DOGE cuts, right?

And yet you were just suggesting to me they're not understaffed, calling into question my claims of the NWS being understaffed. You're building your argument on shifting sands. First they're well staffed, now they've been understaffed for forever. Which is it?

> Their budget proposals trying to slash a quarter of NOAA budgets doesn't seem like a cherry-picked issue...

Because these aren't part of a plan specifically targeting NOAA. They're broad attacks on government infrastructure. The distinction is important.

> And acting like the things happening at the NSF don't have any relationship to data used for NOAA is another thing. Oh, it's just programs being axed at the NSF, no worries, they'd surely never touch NOAA. I'm sure data about ocean temperatures has absolutely nothing to do with weather!

How, specifically, does slashing programs at NSF lead to "privitization of NOAA"?

> Then why did DOGE happen? Why submit budget proposals slashing NOAA by a quarter??

Because _that's what Conservatives do_ in American politics. They virtue signal to their base and then run away from things as their efforts are neutered. Where have you been since the 2000? The executive branch doesn't set the budget, their recommendations to Congress are ceremonial at best. A cheap and easy way to generate optics without committing to actions with extremely negative repercussions.

Tell me - where are the Republican Congressional budget proposals which slash NOAA's OAR budget?

> Acting like these things aren't happening is continuing to ignore the foxes circling the henhouse. You were seemingly even unaware about the Regional Climate Centers going offline, telling me it didn't happen

Now you're just being disingenuous. You said they were cut - they _weren't_, they were caught in the blast radius of government funding shenangians in Congress along with hundreds or thousands of other programs. Show me an EO or a piece of legislation that eliminates the RCCs, will you?

> Thinking Project 2025 is just a conspiracy theory when they have been actively working towards many of these policy goals all because Trump told you an obvious lie. I'm sorry, but if you're one of the people supposedly there helping to ensure these programs have a successful future and don't see the obvious attempts to smash these programs it makes me even more worried about their futures.

No one said Project 2025 is a conspiracy theory.

It's not productive to waste time with you. You have no idea what you're talking about. But let me be very blunt - _you are making everyone's job harder_ by defaulting to Project 2025 and ascribing motives to actions where there aren't any. The Trump Administration _literally doesn't care_ about NOAA, and the agency has its defenders on both sides of the aisle in Congress who have actively responded to acute crises whenever the Admin's chaos creates them.

As the wailing about "muh NOAA is being privatized!" grows louder, it derails our interventions to safe harbor the agency because thoughtful, constructive compromise can be washed away as P2025 doomerism.

Stop exaggerating what's going on to win internet points.

> Because these aren't part of a plan specifically targeting NOAA.

A 26% budget cut proposal and massive firings aren't actually an attack. Sure. Oh its not specifically targeting only NOAA, I guess that's fine then. If they were to dismantle only NOAA that'd be a problem worth concern, but because its tied up in other things too its A-OK!

> The executive branch doesn't set the budget,

Tell that to the Trump administration which seems to constantly fail to spend money budgeted by Congress while spending billions on a war Congress told him not to engage in. How's all that USAID spending going these days?

> they were caught in the blast radius of government funding shenangians in Congress

Continuing to push this lie that even the administration isn't making. They were shut down briefly because the executive stopped cutting the checks by their own admission, not because of a congressional funding shortfall. The government was fully funded in April 2025. You act like I don't have a clue while you continue on with this easily checked thing.

> No one said Project 2025 is a conspiracy theory

Its in this comment thread, just not by you I agree. Strange for you to say such an obviously untrue thing. You do end up trying to downplay its influence left and right though.

> what Conservatives do

If you think this administration is just what normal conservatives have done in past administrations you really haven't been paying attention.

> The Trump Administration _literally doesn't care_ about NOAA

You're right, they don't. They suggest they want to cut about 26% of it. They would seemingly love to never have to care about it again.

> thoughtful, constructive compromise

Thoughtful and constructive compromise about what exactly? That global warming doesn't exist? That anthropogenic climate change is a fraud?

> it derails our interventions to safe harbor the agency

Safe harboring the agency? From what? Why do you need to be worried? What is it that you're harboring it safely from? You've just told me its obviously not the Trump administration.

Quit burying your head in the sand and wake up my dude. The only reason why the DOGE cuts were unsuccessful were because people spoke up. Quit acting like the only way to ensure bad things don't happen is to be quiet about things and ignore obvious issues. If you see something bad happening, speak up.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com