Laying Off NOAA staff

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:we have facebook apps that tells you when the snow is coming

you cannot be this stupid

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats love to use NOAA as an example of federal bureacrats doing valuable work. "We shouldn't be firing bureaucrats, because think of things like NOAA!"

If Democrats truly value NOAA's important work, a small fund will be raised to set up a similar operation outside government, hiring some of the same workers. They can get access to the various temperature feeds around the world (most countries will support this), and they can continue the work of tracking the temperatures, etc.

Right now NOAA's budget is $6 billion, which seems quite high for a temperature tracking operation. But, that's only $17 per American. If Democrats think it's important, they can duplicate it for only $34 per Democrat. Or $200 for 1 out of 6 Democrats who care enough about climate. Outside of government, the work can probably be done cheaper, maybe for $1 billion instead of $6 billion. So if we get 1 out of 6 Democrats to pay $34 each we can save NOAA.

But if no Democrats want to pony up anything, we'll know that it wasn't all that important to them.

This is a great idea! Then, when you open a weather app or receive a severe weather alert, you can show your voter registration and if you are a registered Democrat, you can view the forecast or alert. And if you are a registered Republican, you can pay $$ to view it. Maybe. If we like you that day.

This is exactly what Elon Musk says about his products (there's a reason his shareholders want to fire him).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:we have facebook apps that tells you when the snow is coming

you cannot be this stupid

Yes, there are millions of people like that. They voted for Trump because they are dumb AF.

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry, NOAA staff. If it helps, you'll almost certainly be reinstated after all of these cases wind through the admin bodies. I know it sucks in the meantime.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats love to use NOAA as an example of federal bureacrats doing valuable work. "We shouldn't be firing bureaucrats, because think of things like NOAA!"

If Democrats truly value NOAA's important work, a small fund will be raised to set up a similar operation outside government, hiring some of the same workers. They can get access to the various temperature feeds around the world (most countries will support this), and they can continue the work of tracking the temperatures, etc.

Right now NOAA's budget is $6 billion, which seems quite high for a temperature tracking operation. But, that's only $17 per American. If Democrats think it's important, they can duplicate it for only $34 per Democrat. Or $200 for 1 out of 6 Democrats who care enough about climate. Outside of government, the work can probably be done cheaper, maybe for $1 billion instead of $6 billion. So if we get 1 out of 6 Democrats to pay $34 each we can save NOAA.

But if no Democrats want to pony up anything, we'll know that it wasn't all that important to them.

This is a great idea! Then, when you open a weather app or receive a severe weather alert, you can show your voter registration and if you are a registered Democrat, you can view the forecast or alert. And if you are a registered Republican, you can pay $$ to view it. Maybe. If we like you that day.

This is exactly what Elon Musk says about his products (there's a reason his shareholders want to fire him).

Actually, your idea is totally reasonable. A free market for NOAA data makes sense. Companies who really need it will pay more for it, people who want it will pay something, people who don't care about it won't buy it. Fine. Fox News will try to do weather reports without NOAA data, and their forecasts will still be pretty good (there are lots of inputs that don't require anything from NOAA). But if their forecasts turn out to be worse, maybe Republicans will finally learn a lesson and switch to some better news sources. Like, imagine farmers. They'll be pissed if their crops flood because their red team news was providing crappy weather forecasts!

[Anonymous]

There was no such thing as NOAA when our parents were growing up. NOAA didn't exist at all until 1970.
And everyone managed to get weather reports before that.

There wasn't even an income tax before 1913. And everyone managed to get weather reports before that too.

[Anonymous]

^^ Love this idea!

And only the ones who pay beforehand will get evacuation notices and help when their houses flood.

No more freebie food donations and medical care to nonpayers who don’t care about the environment.

[Anonymous]

Has NOAA been saving houses from flooding? That's quite a claim.

[Anonymous]

They want airlines to have to pay expensive subscription fees for weather information. Those costs will be pushed onto consumers at the ticket counter.

[Anonymous]

I live in Florida and just emailed my two Republican Senators to ask them to please save NWS and NOAA. I cannot even imagine how devastating this year's hurricane season will be without these two agencies.

I don't expect either of them to respond - or even to take me seriously. But my gd I hope they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has NOAA been saving houses from flooding? That's quite a claim.

We all love government bureaucrats around here, but we shouldn't get too outlandish in our claims about their heroics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats love to use NOAA as an example of federal bureacrats doing valuable work. "We shouldn't be firing bureaucrats, because think of things like NOAA!"

If Democrats truly value NOAA's important work, a small fund will be raised to set up a similar operation outside government, hiring some of the same workers. They can get access to the various temperature feeds around the world (most countries will support this), and they can continue the work of tracking the temperatures, etc.

Right now NOAA's budget is $6 billion, which seems quite high for a temperature tracking operation. But, that's only $17 per American. If Democrats think it's important, they can duplicate it for only $34 per Democrat. Or $200 for 1 out of 6 Democrats who care enough about climate. Outside of government, the work can probably be done cheaper, maybe for $1 billion instead of $6 billion. So if we get 1 out of 6 Democrats to pay $34 each we can save NOAA.

But if no Democrats want to pony up anything, we'll know that it wasn't all that important to them.

do you really believe that NOAA only tracks temps? Or that private companies will be allowed unfettered access to satellite data, which is what NOAA uses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has NOAA been saving houses from flooding? That's quite a claim.

If it lets municipalities know where houses should not be built

or

If NOAA lets homeowners know, with greater accuracy, which home is likely to flood so they can evaluate the risk rationally and then not buy that house, then it lets buyers at least go in with the knowledge they need to make the decision to buy a house that won't flood.

They will no longer have that option if flood maps are no longer updated or even drawn in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:we have facebook apps that tells you when the snow is coming

LMFAO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has NOAA been saving houses from flooding? That's quite a claim.

the NWS is under NOAA, it tells me when it isn't safe to drive down Beach Drive, and when properties by the Potomac should raise their flood gates.