
White House proposes steep budget cut to NOAA - molecule
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/03/03/white-house-proposes-steep-budget-cut-to-leading-climate-science-agency/
======
acomjean
[http://weather.gov](http://weather.gov) (run by NOAA and the national weather
service) is my go to weather site.

No ads, no hyperbole.

I found out about it when some senator wanted to stop them from posting
weather online because it competed with "private sector" weather companies.

A couple times I've seen that tv news weather leaves the site up on their
monitors during newscasts.

~~~
icehawk219
I've used weather.gov for years and love the service. Every person I've talked
to who complains about the crap coverage by the weather companies in the US
that I've shown it to uses it exclusively as well. It's a perfect example of
the governments lack of profit motive producing a genuinely better product
than the competition. I know this isn't always the case but it certainly is
here.

I don't agree with lots of things our government spends money on but stuff
like this I absolutely support.

~~~
dingaling
> It's a perfect example of the governments lack of profit motive producing a
> genuinely better product than the competition

There is no better product because it's not commercially viable to compete
against the free money that NOAA receives. If NOAA didn't exist, others would
try to compete commercially in that space.

In the UK the Met Office is notionally a part of the Ministry of Defence[0]
but is required to be profit generating, so basically operates as a commercial
enterprise. Whilst they provide free weather forecasting and alerts for the
public, commercial users have to pay for data ( raw and processed ).

After 93 years the BBC decided to change from the Met Office to another
source, the free market at work. The Met Office has to improve its product and
/ or reduce its costs to keep competing; NOAA has no such incentives towards
efficiency or improvement.

[0] Correction: transferred to the Department for Business, Innovation and
Skills in 2011

~~~
gech
> the free money

It's not free. It's what patriots pay their taxes for.

------
krapp
Of course they are.

NOAA does nothing which panders to populist sentiment. NOAA can't put steel
workers to work. NOAA is not the grit of honest American labor, or the power
of military conquest, or the gold of a halcyon age.

NOAA cannot Make America Great Again, but a new fleet of aircraft carriers
can.

So it goes. Tie a rock to a string and hang it outside your window to see
which way the wind is blowing.

~~~
bobmno
17 trillion in debt, time to cut back

~~~
bitJericho
The military is 60 percent of the budget.

~~~
ra1n85
It's not. Defense comes in at 15% of federal spending. Social security and
medicare combined come in at 4x that amount.

Source:[http://federal-
budget.insidegov.com/l/120/2017-Estimate](http://federal-
budget.insidegov.com/l/120/2017-Estimate)

~~~
xenadu02
Yeah and they take a very specific tax out of everyone's paycheck to pay for
those two programs.

If you want to have an argument about them that's fine but they have separate
budgets and should be discussed separately.

~~~
gpawl
They are both taxes. All else equal, taxpayers would happily pay 1pts more
income tax and 2pt less social security, or vice versa. All my tax dollars are
the same color.

------
tsomctl
> The biggest single cut proposed by the passback document comes from NOAA’s
> satellite division, .... Researchers there were behind a study suggesting
> that there has been no recent slowdown in the rate of climate change —
> research that drew the ire of Republicans in Congress.

Yes, let's shoot the messenger.

~~~
mikeash
When you "know" the message is wrong but the messenger won't shut up about it,
these things start to sound like a good idea.

~~~
findateamfirst
When on Earth did anti science trolls take such a prominent role in HN? It's
not hard for me to imagine a misinformation campaign run against HN, because I
can't really understand how someone technical could countenance anti climate
change ideas.

~~~
exclusiv
If you've done any sort of computer modeling, it's pretty easy to understand
why technical people would have doubts. It's pretty easy to do it wrong and
it's pretty easy to make it look right. Anyway, questioning _is_ science and
the debate is more about whether the sky is falling, whether man is primarily
responsible, and if so what the next steps should be. So you can acknowledge
that deforestation contributes to global warming as an example while being
skeptical of the claims and modeling the environmentalists make.

~~~
exclusiv
This also doesn't help ease concerns with those that are skeptical of many
reports and models:

[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-
chang...](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/5/climate-change-
whistleblower-alleges-noaa-manipula/)

> “Gradually, in the months after [the report] came out, the evidence kept
> mounting that Tom Karl constantly had his ‘thumb on the scale’ — in the
> documentation, scientific choices, and release of datasets — in an effort to
> discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the
> publication of the paper to influence national and international
> deliberations on climate policy,” Mr. Bates said Saturday on Climate Etc.

> “What John Bates has done is to expose this culture based not on robust
> science, but on promoting an agenda,” Mr. Pielke said in a comment on
> Climate Etc. “Regardless of one’s views on policies, the scientific method
> should not be hijacked as they have done.”

~~~
digitalzombie
It's an allegation base on evidence and report with no source.

The news article if you can call that, sources the Daily UK Mail as a source.

> Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming
> hiatus,

There is no smoking gun. It's a hear say from one person or two.

~~~
exclusiv
Bates is an insider source as is Roger Pielke. We'll find out more as the
investigation unfolds. There's more to this lack of discipline to scientific
methods as they push for policy changes and their own agenda.

> Another prominent climate scientist, the University of Colorado’s Roger A.
> Pielke Sr., said Mr. Bates‘ experience was “consistent with my experiences”
> with Mr. Karl on the Climate Change Science Program in 2005.

------
blackaspen
Yikes. But unfortunately not unsurprising.

I live in Boulder and drive past the NOAA (and NIST, and I think parts of
CIRES) offices every day. I've had family and countless professors that have
done joint research with them, and very, very good friends and colleagues that
have started their careers there. Part of how I wound up here (in the tech
sector, posting to HN) was on an eighth grade field trip there asking how they
drove 'Science on a Sphere' (7 RHEL machines).

It'd obviously be terrible globally if this were to go through, but it'd be
pretty awful locally too. Every year around budget approval season, most NOAA
folks I know would be insanely worried...Guess that comes a little early this
year.

EDIT: I guess as a follow up, I anticipate pretty substantial(proposed, at
least) cuts to UCAR/NCAR and NREL as well. "We don't need no stinkin' climate
research!"

~~~
davesque
Yep. I'm in Boulder too. NOAA, NCAR, and NIST have always been fixtures
(almost cultural, not just scientific institutions) of this town. It's sad to
hear this news and just serves to reinforce the sense of helplessness I feel
when faced with climate science doubters. There really couldn't be a more
important issue facing the planet right now. But, alas, humans mostly don't
care.

~~~
jacquesm
> But, alas, humans mostly don't care.

Humans mostly do. But not all humans get to vote in the US elections.

------
AlbertoGP
Cutting their satellite programs would be a loss for the whole world: some
years ago we[1] used it to find gas flares in Nigeria and estimate their
environmental damage and the amount of energy wasted by flaring it instead of
power generation for the population of the Niger Delta:

[http://gasflaretracker.ng/](http://gasflaretracker.ng/)

[1] I built the application working as freelancer for
[http://www.stakeholderdemocracy.org/](http://www.stakeholderdemocracy.org/)

While processing their raw data I got a small discrepancy and they very kindly
replied my questions with the exact formulas and constants they used: the
cause was that they used the density of methane at 20°C instead of 25°C as I
had done.

Getting that kind of data from similar agencies in other countries, even
Western European ones, is immensely more difficult even when it exists.

------
brohoolio
The cuts are gonna kill a ton of jobs. Blue collar ones too. And some of the
US competitive advantage.

Science has been driving our economy for years.

They are also proposing cutting funding for clean water in the Great Lakes
region 97%. Largest source of fresh water in the world and we are gonna cut
almost all of the funding?

~~~
mikeyouse
They've also announced eliminating the budget to control Asian carp...
billions and billions in economic activity are going to be lost, not to
mention so much biological diversity in the Great Lakes. Just an absolute
catastrophe.

~~~
maxerickson
Is that also a budget action?

This describes it as an administrative action to preserve certain business
activities in Illinois:

[http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/03/trump_admin...](http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/03/trump_administration_delays_re.html)

To be clear, I prefer the plan that protects the lakes.

~~~
mikeyouse
Yep, the overall program cut by 95%+ in the Trump budget.

[http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/03/trump_great_lake...](http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2017/03/trump_great_lakes_epa_cuts.html)

------
ivanstegic
WTF is wrong with this administration and data? Honestly.

~~~
pauloday
Well, it's easier to lie about things when there's not any hard data
available, and they do seem to lie a lot.

~~~
akhilcacharya
They do it even when there's data available, they don't care either way I
think.

~~~
Broken_Hippo
Without data, folks can't prove they are lying, though.

------
pasbesoin
Those of use who care about these things are a bit screwed, in that the mid-
terms put so many more Democratic seats in play than Republican.

And the Republican majority knows it owes a significant part of its current
position to Trump -- and his acive base.

Nonetheless, if you don't want science and reason and at least a best-effort
at environmental and resource management to go out the window, NOW is the time
to communicate this to your representatives. Whatever your political
affiliation as well as that of your representatives.

There are reasonable differences on how to manage as well as measure and
report resources and the environment. Most rational people, regardless of
their position, don't want to throw the science and scientific endeavors out
the window.

And as for "conservative" and "business" value in this: I believe agri-
business -- at whatever scale -- derives significant value from the likes of
NOAA surveying, evaluating, and reporting on weather and climate.

Something I find annoying about these... "government-science-divestment"
attitudes and agendas. These programs don't nor even primarily support "tree
huggers". They've grown up, exist, and maintain support because the provide
significant value to _business and commerce._

~~~
chasing
> Those of use who care about these things are a bit screwed, in that the mid-
> terms put so many more Democratic seats in play than Republican.

Maybe in the Senate, but not in the House! Get out there and find some
Democrats in tight districts to support!

------
dflock
I had heard that Trump/Republican the plan to kill NASA's climate research,
was actually going to be to shunt it over to NOAA. This might be the other
shoe dropping - defund NOAA (especially the satellite division) so that they
can't keep the climate research going.

------
wiggyslim
Makes sense when the powers that be think climate change is made up, in fact
maybe they think the climate is made up. Why fund an agency that spends money
on something that does not exist?

~~~
metaobject
Certainly they believe that weather exists? Cuts to NOAA won't just affect
climate change research but will affect weather forecasts, hurricane
forecasts, severe weather forecasts, etc.

Mr. Trump is a pathetic excuse for a president.

~~~
johnjhayes
>Certainly they believe that weather exists?

Exists? Sure. What it actually is? Not really.

"Trump also misrepresented what happened to the weather during his swearing
in. He said he felt a few drops of rain as he started delivering his address,
but then, “God looked down and, and he said we’re not going to let it rain on
your speech.. . .The truth is it stopped immediately.”

Light rain continued to fall through the first few minutes of the speech — and
VIP’s at the dais took out ponchos, including former president George W. Bush
— and then quit. Trump said there was a downpour right after he finished,
which did not occur." \- [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-in-
cia-visit-a...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-in-cia-visit-
attacks-media-for-coverage-of-his-inaugural-
crowds/2017/01/21/f4574dca-e019-11e6-ad42-f3375f271c9c_story.html?utm_term=.bcad097e7712)

------
danh1979
Everyone knows about weather and climate, but NOAA also does a lot of ocean
exploration:

[http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/explorations.html](http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/explorations/explorations.html)

------
jankotek
This is really bad. NOAA also covers oceans. This talk mentions how it was
underfunded already 9 years ago.

[https://www.ted.com/talks/robert_ballard_on_exploring_the_oc...](https://www.ted.com/talks/robert_ballard_on_exploring_the_oceans)

------
coldcode
Someday perhaps we can return to those wonderful bygone era when we had no
weather satellites and no one knew the hurricane was coming and thousands of
people die and billions of dollars is lost. But the important thing is we
bought more carriers.

------
Gargoyle
"according to a four-page budget memo obtained by The Washington Post."

Why not share that memo with the public since they have it? How is the public
interest served by not sharing it?

~~~
Analemma_
The White House is desperately trying to crack down on leaks:
[https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/03/03/us/politics/03reu...](https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2017/03/03/us/politics/03reuters-
usa-trump-secrecy-exclusive.html), to the point of demanding aides hand over
their phone to check that Signal is not installed. It's entirely possible the
Post and/or whoever leaked the memo is suspicious of custom "fingerprinted"
versions that could be traced back to the source.

------
coss
Just playing devil's advocate can someone articulate what kind of value we
will lose as a society?

~~~
peckrob
I live in Dixie Alley [0], a place prone to incredibly violent tornadoes. The
National Weather Service, part on NOAA, has saved many lives here. If you
follow along on a weather enthusiast forum like TalkWeather [1], you'll see
just some of the protection that NWS provides us. The prediction and modeling
alone are amazing. The thought of not having those people looking out for me
is terrifying.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Alley](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Alley)

[1] [http://talkweather.com/index.php](http://talkweather.com/index.php)

~~~
exclusiv
Is it the federal governments job to invest in protecting people that
knowingly live in dangerous areas though? Not saying you shouldn't live there,
but if you have a known risk and your local government and citizens cannot
manage that risk - why should other citizens across the country pay for that?
I understand those services were being delivered and now there might be a gap
which is worrisome, but can it be solved at the state level? Or perhaps a
coalition of states in the area? Is the NWS the only capable source of safety
related weather information?

~~~
1_2__3
Did you ask for an example for honest debate, or to have a straw man you could
pick apart? Because it seems like it's the latter. You're arguing his example
and ignoring the larger point (likely intentionally).

~~~
exclusiv
Honest. I was pretty clear that I think it's a state issue but was interested
in hearing whether it's feasible for the states to handle. If it isn't, then I
could see that being a valid justification as a federal investment which is
undergoing cuts that may affect the service.

~~~
rabidrat
Every state has weather that can be devastating; also weather does not usually
confine itself to state boundaries.

~~~
exclusiv
I'm not sure what your point is. Is it that since every state benefits from
NOAA data it's a sensible investment federally? What if a state requires 5x as
many resources as another state? We already have a scenario where southern
states draw a lot more than they contribute. We enable states to avoid
managing their own citizen's welfare. A lot of people don't want to pay for
other people to live in known tornado alleys, just like those people wouldn't
want to pay for people to live on fault lines overlooking the ocean or in
flood plains.

~~~
scriptkiddy
Let me put it to you this way:

There is no place to live that is totally safe from bad weather. It is in the
best interest of every citizen of the United States to pay for climate and
weather modeling as disastrous weather can have massive impact on the economy.
Also, from a moral standpoint, I personally don't mind shelling out some money
to try and keep people safe.

As to your point about people living in areas where weather tends to be
statistically more dangerous: If the government came to your house and forced
you to leave, how would you feel about that?

~~~
exclusiv
Is the NOAA the only entity that could provide this data?

Nobody is suggesting forcing people to leave, but there are people that
knowingly live in places that are drastically more dangerous just like there
are a ton of people that decide to not take responsibility for their own
health which creates a burden on everyone. I'm just suggesting that those
local governments should take more responsibility. Or people pay extra for
insurance. Some areas are so risky you can't even buy insurance to protect
your home. So maybe those states should come up with a strategy rather than
let the whole country pay.

~~~
ezy
My stock response to libertarians: "I'm glad that things have worked out great
for you". Before you propose dismantling an existing arrangement that seems to
be working just fine, you first have to tell us why the existing arrangement
is faulty in a real practical sense. If you can not do that, then leave it the
hell alone. We have enough ideologues fucking with things already.

~~~
exclusiv
If you cannot see why people knowingly living in dangerous areas that have
local governments that aren't accountable for preparing for these disasters
and then relying on a federal government is faulty then you're not looking at
it objectively.

We've seen it unfold before where the federal government is too late and more
people die than should have given the circumstances. It enables states to
defer the safety of their own people it depends on to function.

Most things should be at the state level. And you're wrong about libertarians.
It's not about things "went well for me screw everyone else". It's about
pushing responsibility to the states where it's supposed to be which is what I
was proposing. Your rude stock response just means you aren't open to a
discussion and are consumed by your own biases.

------
BrailleHunting
Next up: disbanding firefighters, parametics and police. Not to be outdone by
shutting down the electric grid.

~~~
icehawk219
You joke but I know plenty of self professed libertarians who want nothing
more than to see those very services privatized. I know someone who genuinely
believes a privatized police force would be the end of police violence because
"then we'd at least be able to fight back." Sadly this is actually how a lot
of people think.

~~~
exclusiv
Yeah that's overboard and I don't think common services should be profitable
enterprises, but the notion that you'd have an entity with serious
repercussions for doing wrong to the people they swore to protect is not
unfound. As it stands now, they are self-preserving entities and collect
pensions when they screw up. So while that suggestion you shared is not
sensible, we do need a better checks and balance on the police. Something
outside of internal affairs, like a BBB at the top of the state department.

------
intrasight
Cuts to any good science will be sad.

------
tasty_freeze
Imagine the free market purists get their way -- all funds are cut for NOAA
and weather prediction is now left to private industry to provide as a
service.

It is an article of faith among many that the free market always produces a
better, even optimal, solution. That may be true, but what it is optimizing is
profit, which is not a direct measure of the accuracy of the service.

For certain market segments, such as farming, there is probably a pretty
strong alignment. But what about for, say, answering questions about whether
climate change is real? Will we see a market for conservative-aligned weather
information providers which delivers the product which the right wants to see?
Likewise, will there be markets to provide what the left wants to see? I have
a hard time seeing how that is an improvement over what we currently have.

------
mordae
When they fire you, come to EU for a bit. It will blow over.

------
owly
I am Jack's complete lack of surprise.

------
ocschwar
Steve Bannon has a thing for shipyards.

Someone should tell him what the NOAA does for merchant shipping.

~~~
mikeash
Worse forecasts -> more dangerous shipping -> more ships lost at sea -> more
business for shipyards.

~~~
hugodahl
And then more ships built quicker to lesser safety standards (we don't need no
stinkin' regulations) which will in turn busy tbe shipyards even more, until
we end up with a maritime version of the "Spruce Goose"!

Or maybe it's just late and I've turned hyperbole up a smidgen.

------
deelowe
sigh...

------
mirimir
Hey, he's just following through on campaign promises. How can you fault him
on that?

In a decade or two, this will probably be laughable. But if he cuts back on
foreign intervention, I'm happy to cut him lots of slack.

~~~
nkozyra
If he cuts back on foreign intervention, this extraordinary emphasis on
"rebuilding" our military (whatever that means given the relative size of our
military) makes even less sense.

If you're hanging your hat on the idea that he'll be less interventionist, I'd
ask you to consider the evidence mounting to the contrary.

~~~
DaUR
He said since the beginning of the primaries that he believe in "Peace through
Strength", and repeated it many times. If you believe he wants to invade the
world, you may be a low-information voter, with all due respect. (note: I
don't like military spending).

~~~
nkozyra
Ad hominem, strawman and passive aggressiveness in a single sentence.
Impressive.

We have - by any objective measure but ground troops and total warheads - the
largest on the planet. "Peace through Strength" is nothing but a platitude. If
it means anything, it's "Biggest Military." We didn't need Donald Trump for
that.

The notion that we must "rebuild" what is already a gigantic military is
perplexing. Our military challenges are not coming to us from nations who are
emboldened that our massive military is not 10% more massive. I'm not going to
call you a low-information voter, but I'm going to ask that you be a little
more critical and analytical if this is as deep as you're going at present.

~~~
DaUR
Where did I argue we have to rebuild the military? Are you even replying to
the right comment? Is your first sentence projection?

~~~
nkozyra
I think you perhaps should read my post again, I made no claim about you
making that argument.

~~~
DaUR
Then what is your post replying to? A poster above said that Trump's military
spending shows he's a warmonger, and I said it's well known to anyone who even
remotely followed the election that he believes in "peace through strength",
so his military spending doesn't prove he's a warmonger.

The only strawman was yours.

~~~
nkozyra
I didn't reply to the warmonger post. I'm not responsible for contextually
connecting every one of my posts to every other in a thread.

Although I see that by not doing so it gives you the opportunity to reply with
this sort of non reply.

~~~
DaUR
> to every other in a thread

You're misrepresenting.

You: If he cuts back on foreign intervention, this extraordinary emphasis on
"rebuilding" our military (whatever that means given the relative size of our
military) makes even less sense.

Me: Yes it does, "Peace through Strength"

Followed by your hyper-aggressive, completely off-topic comment right here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13789479](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13789479)

Why did I need to write the above up?

~~~
nkozyra
Though I'm not sure you're arguing in good faith ...

Peace through strength is not something that requires additional military
resources. I'm not sure why you're being obtuse about this.

He promised during the campaign to cut the debt; his proposed budget would do
the opposite.

"Peace Through Strength" is, again, a platitude, but even if we take it at
face value we have strength at 4x+ and other nation.

------
cool_look
Sorry to hear about anyone losing jobs.

The NOAA has been suspected of doctoring the record[1], of all varieties
including the satellites once they got control of them[2]. there will be more
insider stories of how some conspired to fake AGW data [3]

so I think it likely that the revisions and corrections will be challenged
soon and we will see that the revisions had no factual basis. Many will
resign, probably jumping before pushed. The cuts are unfortunately prejudging
the outcome.

[1]
[https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/11/21/noa...](https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/11/21/noaas-
fabricated-record-temperatures/)

[2] [https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/03/08/rss-satellite-
tem...](https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2016/03/08/rss-satellite-temperature-
update-consolidates-with-uah/)

[3]
[https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/02/12/boo...](https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2017/02/12/booker-
on-the-noaa-scandal/)

~~~
mistermann
From the first link:

"Note how a huge swathe of South America has been labelled as “record
warmest”. And what is this based on? In fact, there is virtually no
temperature data available at all for that particular area, including nearly
all of Brazil. The so-called record temperatures in Brazil and neighbouring
countries are pure fabrication."

That seems like a pretty bold charge, how does someone who knows nothing about
this tell who's telling the truth? Anyone care to weigh in?

EDIT: Seems you're downvoted to grey already, hopefully someone can still add
some commentary.

~~~
Rebelgecko
I recently read a very convincing (to me at least) debunking of that first
link, but unfortunately I'm not able to find it right now. But from memory:

The claim is that the temperature data in the first map is made up because
some of its data isn't present in the second map (just look at Africa, South
America, and the oceans). HOWEVER:

The first map shows a combination of two data sets. The second map only shows
one of the data sets used in the first map. Not surprisingly, this means that
the second map has less data.

The two graphs are also covering different time periods. The second graph
covers a smaller time period, so presumably that lets them be more specific
about where the temperatures are recorded. The ERSST data in the first graph
goes back more than 100 years, so they don't have quite the same precision and
consistency in terms of where the measurements came from. The bigger grid
squares in the first map reflect that some of the data is interpolated as
weather stations moved from city to city, new weather stations start coming
into play halfway through the dataset, etc.

EDIT: Apparently the debunking I read was on Stackoverflow of all places. I
must've fallen down that rabbit hole while looking up something totally
unrelated. Here's the link:
[http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/37119/did-
noaa-p...](http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/37119/did-noaa-publish-
a-fake-map-with-temperature-data-it-doesnt-have)

~~~
cool_look
From the stackoverflow comments its clear that theoretical models have been
proposed to infer the temperature on land from the ocean database.

the main concern is that the models are pure junk science.

so saying "our models say it is so" is precisely the problem

~~~
Rebelgecko
Are there any specific concerns with the methodology? I didn't see any mention
of that in the first link.

------
MichaelBurge
> according to a four-page budget memo obtained by The Washington Post.

So somebody in the NOAA is leaking internal memos to the press. Is it so bad
to cut funding to rebellious agencies?

It could be a good way to catch leakers: Distribute to every agency head a
memo mentioning upcoming budget cuts, and see which self-righteous agencies
try to stir up trouble. Instruct the agency heads to make minor changes to the
details, to see if they surface.

I don't have an opinion on the NOAA itself, although it doesn't look like
they're being targeted:

> NOAA is part of the Commerce Department, which would be hit by an overall 18
> percent budget reduction from its current funding level.

~~~
metaobject
"Is it so bad to cut funding to rebellious agencies?"

If the agency provides a vital service to the country, I'd say it is bad to
punish the country by cutting their funding just because an employee in that
agency leaked a document.

~~~
MichaelBurge
The budget cut memo by itself is not that important. The memo was probably
forwarded to every manager in the department, and all it takes is one
disgruntled underling expecting his job to be cut.

But if it's a consistent pattern, there's risk in having the government be
staffed with people who feel justified in breaking the law to preserve their
jobs, even if they feel their jobs are important.

