U.S. withdrawal

[Mushroom]

Yes, it will change the accuracy of whether forecast and cost lives.

And you have yet to say who or what this actually involves. Or include a single reference of any kind.

Seems like somebody needs to be slapped with a basic guide to using the APA format.

Reference List: Basic Rules - Purdue OWL® - Purdue University

owl.purdue.edu

 

[Bitterhook]

I do not give a damn what a grant is for, the intent of a grant is primarily to start a new research program, or to provide additional funding so it can continue or to give some funding to complete a research program. They are expected to continue based upon funding from other financial sources. If a program (any program) can not exist or continue without grant money, then it probably was not a well thought out program in the first place.

Senator Kennedy kind of cleared that up when asking Experts, Activists and Congress members about the 50 trillion we are expected to spend over the next thirty years in regard to whether or not it would produce what they could expect be to any measurable change in the climate, and they basically said "No".

 

[Mushroom]

Senator Kennedy kind of cleared that up when asking Experts, Activists and Congress members about the 50 trillion we are expected to spend over the next thirty years in regard to whether or not it would produce what they could expect be to any measurable change in the climate, and they basically said "No".

In many ways it can almost be said that an "industry" has popped up that survives purely based on milking various grant programs. And in a great many, their only purpose to exist is to keep the gravy train pouring in. And I to be honest do not give a damn what the grants are for. Climate study, child care, starting minority businesses, immunizations to the poor, new kinds of corn to grow in an area that corn does not normally grow, seeing if dogs can be taught to sing. To me it really does not matter.

Either the program needs to be run by the Government directly, it needs to learn to survive without the teat of the government cow, or it needs to die. No such "grants" should become essentially "Government annuities" to non-governmental agencies.

 

[Bitterhook]

In many ways it can almost be said that an "industry" has popped up that survives purely based on milking various grant programs. And in a great many, their only purpose to exist is to keep the gravy train pouring in. And I to be honest do not give a damn what the grants are for. Climate study, child care, starting minority businesses, immunizations to the poor, new kinds of corn to grow in an area that corn does not normally grow, seeing if dogs can be taught to sing. To me it really does not matter.

Either the program needs to be run by the Government directly, it needs to learn to survive without the teat of the government cow, or it needs to die. No such "grants" should become essentially "Government annuities" to non-governmental agencies.

Most certainly, and an industry built with the express purpose of tapping a bottomless pit of money and debt for the sake of humanity, which is a great marketing plan, and when combined with unimpeachable text, which is one of the Eight Tenants of Establishing an Organized Religion, and the fact that only requires faith in the masses, even in a secular setting it can survive.

Otherwise, another thing the Experts got around to is that it won't make a bit of difference what we do if the rest of the world doesn't do it too, while they are certainly not prepared to take on enormous debt or make the sacrifices necessary, unless people just want to volunteer their services and resources for free.

 

[Mushroom]

Most certainly, and an industry built with the express purpose of tapping a bottomless pit of money and debt for the sake of humanity, which is a great marketing plan, and when combined with unimpeachable text, which is one of the Eight Tenants of Establishing an Organized Religion, and the fact that only requires faith in the masses, even in a secular setting it can survive.

And this can be seen in multiple non-profit agencies.

For example, take the Easterseals Organization. That was actually founded with the intention of helping children dealing with polio. But since Polio was pretty much eradicated it has since morphed into helping children with birth defects. The same with the March of Dimes, which was founded to prevent polio. There is an actual reason why FDR is the face on the US ten cent coin. He was one of the founders of the organization so after his death it seemed appropriate to put his face on the Dime.

But like Easterseals, once polio was eradicated they had to find a new mission, and it also became birth defects. And like with Polio, Easterseals strives to help those with birth defects while March of Dimes strives to eliminate birth defects. However, both of those have been able to survive for decades primarily on private and corporate donations and have not required huge amounts of government cash to continue.

But I have long considered those that have an unshaking believe in "Climate Change" to be more akin to a religion than science. Complete with not being able to stand any kind of research or results that contradicts their beliefs.

But to me, the issue or side of the issue really does not matter at all. Grant programs should not be the primary funding of any such programs, period. The only exceptions should be if it is the Government itself that is running the program, and they are not funded with any kind of political bias or agenda.

 

[Bitterhook]

And this can be seen in multiple non-profit agencies.

For example, take the Easterseals Organization. That was actually founded with the intention of helping children dealing with polio. But since Polio was pretty much eradicated it has since morphed into helping children with birth defects. The same with the March of Dimes, which was founded to prevent polio. There is an actual reason why FDR is the face on the US ten cent coin. He was one of the founders of the organization so after his death it seemed appropriate to put his face on the Dime.

But like Easterseals, once polio was eradicated they had to find a new mission, and it also became birth defects. And like with Polio, Easterseals strives to help those with birth defects while March of Dimes strives to eliminate birth defects. However, both of those have been able to survive for decades primarily on private and corporate donations and have not required huge amounts of government cash to continue.

But I have long considered those that have an unshaking believe in "Climate Change" to be more akin to a religion than science. Complete with not being able to stand any kind of research or results that contradicts their beliefs.

But to me, the issue or side of the issue really does not matter at all. Grant programs should not be the primary funding of any such programs, period. The only exceptions should be if it is the Government itself that is running the program, and they are not funded with any kind of political bias or agenda.

Awesome footnote, I was aware that President Roosevelt had polio, but I didn't know that is how he ended up on the dime.
I can also see and agree with your interests in addressing the issues with grants.

I often like assaulting ideas from a plethora of angles, and as far as the "religion" aspect is concerned, I could connect all Eight Tenants of Establishing an Organized Religion and in relation to Climate Change, albeit that would take a considerable amount of time and effort to type out and support.

But in a different direction, the responses from the OP and their truly vapid nature are a fair indication of what essentially happens in every doomsday scenario. When a doomsday condition is established, it requires a certain inescapable catastrophe, and the more pressing or urgent the matter can be presented, the more immediate (or less than thoughtful) a response becomes as an implied necessity.

However, to achieve both, it always means creating a condition that just short of divine intervention, we're pretty much screwed, and then it is suggested that government, regulations, and global cooperation can substitute for damn near divine intervention. Adding what you are talking about in grants, poor policy, and the inevitable money grab, it eventually starts to fall apart to a degree in the common view.

It falls apart because everything mankind touches can be corrupted in one way or another, and I am not being spiritual because that's just the way it is and human behavior is also a school of science. Just like Economics is as much the study of human behavior as the study of how economies work or flourish, and so on. Once it starts falling apart, then you really only have two choices, although they may vary in the degree to which you embrace or challenge them.

The two choices are embracing the endeavor and attempting to overcome the inevitable, or deciding the path we are taking is not going to provide us with a sustainable result and will just involve a lot of wasted money and foolish enabling of corruption.

Sorry about being longwinded and a bit esoteric, and in reality, I just wish some people could understand they come across more like Jim Jones than Michio Kaku when discussing what they believe to be the science involved.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The U.S. is withdrawing from the data gathering about the environment. This is an environment thread,

This is false and you have yet to back this amazing claim.

 

[ReinyDays]

And this can be seen in multiple non-profit agencies.

For example, take the Easterseals Organization. That was actually founded with the intention of helping children dealing with polio. But since Polio was pretty much eradicated it has since morphed into helping children with birth defects. The same with the March of Dimes, which was founded to prevent polio. There is an actual reason why FDR is the face on the US ten cent coin. He was one of the founders of the organization so after his death it seemed appropriate to put his face on the Dime.

But like Easterseals, once polio was eradicated they had to find a new mission, and it also became birth defects. And like with Polio, Easterseals strives to help those with birth defects while March of Dimes strives to eliminate birth defects. However, both of those have been able to survive for decades primarily on private and corporate donations and have not required huge amounts of government cash to continue.

But I have long considered those that have an unshaking believe in "Climate Change" to be more akin to a religion than science. Complete with not being able to stand any kind of research or results that contradicts their beliefs.

But to me, the issue or side of the issue really does not matter at all. Grant programs should not be the primary funding of any such programs, period. The only exceptions should be if it is the Government itself that is running the program, and they are not funded with any kind of political bias or agenda.

Then you think private industry should donate to universities for research? ... are you anti-learning? ...

Do you include McMurdo AFS? ... because without the government funding, there is no research in Antarctica ... no business is going to invest there, no business will fund the infrastructure ... there's absolutely no return on investment ... if the government doesn't provide funding, then there will be no funds at all ...

Do you think MAGA Mike Johnson is going to bankrupt LSU? ... never going to happen ...

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The U.S. is withdrawing from the data gathering about the environment. This is an environment thread,

Where is your link?

 

[kevinthrowe]

This is false and you have yet to back this amazing claim.

Amazing claim that America is closing it’s data gathering for climate data?

 

[ReinyDays]

Amazing claim that America is closing it’s data gathering for climate data?

That's an insane claim ... the NWS isn't closing down ... weather data = climate data ... maybe try and educate yourself, your local airport will have information on where you can take ground school classes ... that will help you understand what "data gathering" means ...

More data ... and more research ... is always better ...

 

[Sunsettommy]

Amazing claim that America is closing it’s data gathering for climate data?

Then you have no evidence to support your claim meanwhile the NOAA, IMBIE, NASA, GOES, and more are still running and gathering data.

 

[Bitterhook]

Amazing claim that America is closing it’s data gathering for climate data?

America isn't closing them, and a lot of partnered centers and institutes just ran out of grant money.

Here is a report on the $4.5 Billion 2026 Budget Proposal in regard to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the programs they intend to decrease or terminate.

Feel free to discuss any of the projects they intend to terminate or decrease funding to in detail.
Please start making a focused attempt towards supporting what you are trying to express.

 

[PeanutGallery]

You object to science?

Science has observable facts. We drop something, it falls. That shows gravity. When it comes to climate change, we have a bunch of graphs and computer models. What we also have are a lot of predictions based on graphs and computer models that didn't happen. How many times are we supposed to listen to people make all these predictions based on climate change that doesn't happen before we start questioning the legitimacy of the graphs and models?

What's even funnier to me is how many people, like you, come on here and profess their belief in climate change, but when people see how they're living, they don't practice what they preach. For example, Obama said for eight years about rising sea levels, but he has a beachfront house in Hawaii. The message and the lifestyle don't align.

 

[Mushroom]

For example, Obama said for eight years about rising sea levels, but he has a beachfront house in Hawaii.

And Kamala Harris just bought an $8 million beachfront mansion in Malibu.

 

[ReinyDays]

America isn't closing them, and a lot of partnered centers and institutes just ran out of grant money.

Here is a report on the $4.5 Billion 2026 Budget Proposal in regard to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the programs they intend to decrease or terminate.

Feel free to discuss any of the projects they intend to terminate or decrease funding to in detail.
Please start making a focused attempt towards supporting what you are trying to express.

"Of the remaining funded programs, the U.S. Weather Research Program, Tornado Severe Storm Research / Phased Array Radar, the Joint Technology Transfer Initiative, High Performance Computing Initiatives, and Research Supercomputing will be transitioned to the NWS and Ocean Exploration and Research, Integrated Ocean Acidification, and Sustained Ocean Observations and Monitoring will be transitioned to NOS. These adjustments will allow these research programs to carry out research that is more directly related to the NOAA mission."

Research money is just being shuffled to programs that save lives today ... not so much worried about 100 years from now ... is that what you mean? ... isn't the "research supercomputing" the very thing you find most offensive ...

Pilots and farmers need weather forecasts ... we spent five times that supporting Argentine Beef ... what's your complaint again? ... not enough research dollars? ... better to buy out this year's soy harvest ...

I'm a liberal, I want to keep my programs and cut your programs ... oh, and you need to raise taxes for my programs ... chop chop ... let's get busy ...

 

[Bitterhook]

"Of the remaining funded programs, the U.S. Weather Research Program, Tornado Severe Storm Research / Phased Array Radar, the Joint Technology Transfer Initiative, High Performance Computing Initiatives, and Research Supercomputing will be transitioned to the NWS and Ocean Exploration and Research, Integrated Ocean Acidification, and Sustained Ocean Observations and Monitoring will be transitioned to NOS. These adjustments will allow these research programs to carry out research that is more directly related to the NOAA mission."

Research money is just being shuffled to programs that save lives today ... not so much worried about 100 years from now ... is that what you mean? ... isn't the "research supercomputing" the very thing you find most offensive ...

Pilots and farmers need weather forecasts ... we spent five times that supporting Argentine Beef ... what's your complaint again? ... not enough research dollars? ... better to buy out this year's soy harvest ...

I'm a liberal, I want to keep my programs and cut your programs ... oh, and you need to raise taxes for my programs ... chop chop ... let's get busy ...

I am a Classical Liberal and as such prefer fiscal responsibility, and limited government involvement.

The adjustments they are making to address some questionable spending are present, and they are moving initiatives around as well as consolidating some projects. Data is important as long as you can do something with it but pursuing data for the purpose of just having data or investigating unrecognized opportunities in the hopes of obtaining what is otherwise no indication of a sustainable result, simply as a matter of desire more than productivity, just isn't the best course of action.

Whether or not I care if it offends someone, would be an accurate assessment of what someone may present as to their actual motives and intentions, and that isn't necessarily science or data outside of the school of human behavior (which I have already discussed).

In no way does that require me to chase my dreams or desires with your money, by any consideration whatsoever.

 

[Mushroom]

Science has observable facts. We drop something, it falls. That shows gravity. When it comes to climate change, we have a bunch of graphs and computer models. What we also have are a lot of predictions based on graphs and computer models that didn't happen. How many times are we supposed to listen to people make all these predictions based on climate change that doesn't happen before we start questioning the legitimacy of the graphs and models?

What is known as "chasing the data". They are really not predicting anything, just constantly altering claims based on what is observed.

That is why I have repeatedly asked for two rather basic tests to validate their claims.

First, go back 20+ years and take the claims made then (unaltered and not adjusted at all) and see what really happened in the timeframe. And secondly, feed their models with a blind set of sample data from some time in the past and then compare the results it gives against what actually happened.

Funny, but those are rather basic first steps in science, but I have never seen it done when it comes to the climate claims. The closest is they will go back and take some data from decades ago, adjust it in the modern time then claim it was right all along. That is why so many of their claims keep having that "Hockey Stick" in it. The predictions never match the reality, so they make a sudden jump as it comes to the present and into the future to try and make the two match up.

And no matter how much they try to claim the current time period is the "warmest ever", it is a fact that it is not. That is why they almost universally start their "clock" during the freaking Little Ice Age. Never during any of the much more recent warm periods, let alone the last interglacial. Or any of the previous interglacials. All of which in the last million years were significantly warmer than it is now.

That is the equivalent of putting the thermostat for your house inside the refrigerator.

Which by the way includes every interglacial since Homo Sapiens first evolved. Which happened during an interglacial that is significantly warmer than it is now.

 

[ReinyDays]

I am a Classical Liberal and as such prefer fiscal responsibility, and limited government involvement.

The adjustments they are making to address some questionable spending are present, and they are moving initiatives around as well as consolidating some projects. Data is important as long as you can do something with it but pursuing data for the purpose of just having data or investigating unrecognized opportunities in the hopes of obtaining what is otherwise no indication of a sustainable result, simply as a matter of desire more than productivity, just isn't the best course of action.

Whether or not I care if it offends someone, would be an accurate assessment of what someone may present as to their actual motives and intentions, and that isn't necessarily science or data outside of the school of human behavior (which I have already discussed).

In no way does that require me to chase my dreams or desires with your money, by any consideration whatsoever.

Smaller government ... I get that ... and defunding these underwater basket weaving grants for advanced degrees is part of that ... but that's more of an issue of funding government through pork-barrel CR's ...

The data is used by aviation ... many many airports across the land issue hourly reports on the six meteorological parameters ... and pilots rely on the 6- and 12-hour forecasts ... AND the data is used for agriculture ... and farmers rely on the 24- and 48-hours forecasts ... anyone relying on 72-hour forecasts is either bankrupt or dead ...

After the fact, we can run the data through all kinds of statistical gymnastics ... and have the data say whatever we want it to say ... these are powerful weapons in the hands of commercial journalism ... and nothing sells advertising space better than fatalism ... we forget only one "End-of-the-World" prediction ever came true ... so what are the odds this one is true? ...

The problem isn't the data ... it's the statistical deceptions that follow ... and an uneducated public willing to believe in anything better than the impoverished lifestyle they live ...

Your tax dollars went to Argentina and soy farmers ... instead of learning ... we get what we pay for ... beef flavored tofu ...

 

[Bitterhook]

Smaller government ... I get that ... and defunding these underwater basket weaving grants for advanced degrees is part of that ... but that's more of an issue of funding government through pork-barrel CR's ...

The data is used by aviation ... many many airports across the land issue hourly reports on the six meteorological parameters ... and pilots rely on the 6- and 12-hour forecasts ... AND the data is used for agriculture ... and farmers rely on the 24- and 48-hours forecasts ... anyone relying on 72-hour forecasts is either bankrupt or dead ...

After the fact, we can run the data through all kinds of statistical gymnastics ... and have the data say whatever we want it to say ... these are powerful weapons in the hands of commercial journalism ... and nothing sells advertising space better than fatalism ... we forget only one "End-of-the-World" prediction ever came true ... so what are the odds this one is true? ...

The problem isn't the data ... it's the statistical deceptions that follow ... and an uneducated public willing to believe in anything better than the impoverished lifestyle they live ...

Your tax dollars went to Argentina and soy farmers ... instead of learning ... we get what we pay for ... beef flavored tofu ...

I made a living off of data and knowing exactly how it can used and abused, for validation, process analysis, productivity gains and exploratory goals, so it isn't necessary for you to attempt to cover that with me. Likewise, more responsible spending in regard to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is not the limit of what I would prefer our Nation address in spending.

So, blah-blah blah, you can preach from your soapbox all you want, but you cannot narrow what I support or don't support into the utter nonsense you would like to pretend it involves, in order to even have an argument.