Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Exactly. The thing that everyone is shitting their pants over is a nothingburger. NOAA once had a verifiable mission. The problem with government agencies is mission creep--they all got on the "climate change" bandwagon because that's where the bucks were. That is now over.

The NOAA's original mission:

> We face immediate and compelling needs for better protection of life and property from natural hazards, and for a better understanding of the total environment-an understanding which will enable us more effectively to monitor and predict its actions, and ultimately, perhaps to exercise some degree of control over them.

> [...]

> I expect it to maintain continuing and close liaison with the new Environmental Protection Agency and the Council on Environmental Quality as part of an effort to ensure that environmental questions are dealt with in their totality and that they benefit from the full range of the government's technical and human resources.

- http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=2575&

This clearly covers climate change, there's no mission creep.

I don't think that sentence means what you think it means.

When we get rid of NOAA you can forget about Hurricane warnings... and since they are probably "alternative facts" you can let people die... or alternatively they "go to heaven". How about, you can't have good predictive models of future events, if you don't know how to model or you don't use the "big data" of past events.

Oh, but the "big bucks" are in climate change? That must be what they do in Silicon Valley and Manhattan? /snark>

The NOAA budget (http://www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/nbo/fy16_bluebook/FY20...) is 6 billion, a pittance compared to any number of govt expenditures - say, $1.508 trillion for the lifetime cost of the F-35.

The "real money", is in the SSI, benefits, health and human services. If Trump attacks those programs with the same enthusiasm as the (foolishly) politicized environmental ones, that will be interesting.

This is true, but I don't love these arguments. When Trump tries to cut the National Endowment for the Arts, the argument should not be "$150 million is nothing", it should be that the NEA does important useful work and deserves to be funded. If it were a truly useless organization, it should be cut regardless of how tiny it is compared to the full budget.

Obviously it's annoying when Trump saves 500 jobs or shaves $100 million off the budget and celebrates like he's just saved the economy, but honestly I'd much rather have him do that than try to make a tremendous deal to privatize social security or something.

>they all got on the "climate change" bandwagon because that's where the bucks were

How many "bucks" do you think that "climate change" gets vs. other possible science??

Citation needed.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact