You must log in or register to comment.
A reminder that this is still how they think.
Here’s a fact check OF a fact check about Project 2025, something that has been stated recently will gut the National Hurricane Center.
USA Today’s fact check of that claim
Now when I first ran across this link, I thought, hmmm…are liberal Youtubers making up stuff to sell their position as a hurricane approaches? Maybe so. Then I read the article and actual text from Project 2025.
Project 2025 “does not call for the elimination of” the National Hurricane Center, Heritage Foundation spokesperson Ellen Keenan told USA TODAY.
Not in the text, this part of the fact check is correct. The text calls for review of it as well as other agencies and downsize or move resources around as needed. But then I see:
Data collected by the department should be presented neutrally, without adjustments intended to support any one side in the climate debate.
Well, that set off some alarm bells in my head. They aren’t actively proposing to shut it down, but there does seem to be an agenda here.
Project 2025 accuses NOAA of “climate alarmism” and calls for it to be "broken up and downsized.” “That is not to say NOAA is useless, but its current organization corrupts its useful functions,” the playbook says of the agency.
I read all this as exactly how MAGA Republicans in power have been treating anything tied to climate change. They aren’t completely cutting things out, only the parts that are inconvenient to their agenda. Which of course is terrible science, and will absolutely affect the ability to learn and respond to future threats.
USA Today is a tool for them if they are marking such claims as completely false.
AccuWeather’s owner and Republican megadonor Joel Myers has been dreaming for years about destroying the National Weather Service. He wants weather to be a for-profit venture (specifically his profit).
God damnit. if you understand anything about our global weather observation network you know that if America privatizes the entire world will have way way less accurate weather no matter what anyone pays.
the only reason things work so well now is because the whole world openly and freely shares all of this data. this is important because all of the world’s weather patterns effect each other. there’s only so much data that can be collected without being in the territory as well. so much of the world’d infrastructure relies on this information being available and accurate. privatizing it would surely be massively profitable and horribly detrimental to everyone and everything. it’s one of the very few actually decent cooporative things humanity has ever done. of course rich bullies want to come and stomp it out.
You know, I’ve never thought about this. I know there are some things that scientists from different nations work together on even if the countries don’t like each other much (like the ISS and cern) but I’ve never thought about the weather.
That’d be insane to privatize weather data but I’m sure that’s what they want to do because they can charge for it.
Lol, “one side of the climate debate.” There isn’t debate among scientists - there’s like less than one percent of climate scientists who don’t believe that humans are putting our climate in a terrible place. So just that part the tells you the bias. It’s just like when they talk about the debate between evolution and creationism: the only debate is with people who reject the data to further their own agenda.
In 2014 John Oliver had a segment on Last Week Tonight where he had “a statistically representative climate change debate”, where he brought out 3 scientists arguing against human affected climate change and 97 arguing for it.
Right, that’s the thing.
I honestly believe part of the problem this country is in today started when the news media felt they had to give equal time to every issue. I remember lots of segments on climate change where they had one person on each side, and I could understand most people coming away believing we just don’t know. And it’s not just climate change, they did that with everything.
So here we are, polarized like never before, with so many believing that every opinion is legitimate. Sure, you can believe what you want, but if you believe the world was created 6000 years ago, you’re just wrong. You’re entitled to believe something wrong, but that doesn’t make it valid. A legitimate news site should reflect that. A climate denier or a creationist shouldn’t get equal time. Same with do many issues.
We can thank Reagan for the situation with the news. He got rid of the Fairness Doctrine which mandated broadcasters both present controversial issues of public importance and do so in a manner that fairly reflected differing viewpoints.
The claim is false and we should absolutely be careful about how we word things but also the outcome will be, as you say, essentially the same.
“…reminder that Project 2025 plans to defund large sections of the NOAA and is more worried about how facts ruin their arguments than the safety of your towns and cities.”
A little longer but at least it’s true.
This is only half the picture. The other half is the repeal of schedule f (I think) where the federal government hires people to serve as experts of a subject rather than working for the administration. Project 2025 wants to reclassify thousands of government jobs to allow them to be appointed but the president. Imagine NOAA, not gone, but rather ran by maga loyalists or scientists who have to shut up or lose their jobs. And tons of other places too like the epa, OSHA, nrc, and more
Wonderful! Jesus Christ I can never quite understand the capacity for evil so many people have. Absolutely vile.
Data collected by the department should be presented neutrally, without adjustments intended to support any one side in the climate debate.
Using recent history as context for my interpretation of this, I believe what they actually mean is “…should definitely not be presented neutrally, because doing so would rely only on the peer reviewed science which overwhelmingly agrees that climate change is definitely a real thing that is currently happening. Instead, DO adjust it to make it seem like it’s impossible to say for sure.”
They just want climate scientists to br like the tobacco studies scientists.
Your comment reminded me of the movie "Thank You for Smoking "
Also it’s important to note that NOAA is often used for military purposes. Four of our six military branches (Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, and the Space Force whatever they do) absolutely and unequivocally depend on their data to do their job, one just relies on it, and the sixth hitches rides on navy equipment.
I’m not the biggest fan of the military industrial complex, but if the oceanic and atmospheric arm of one of the world’s most significant consumers of mined hydrocarbons has been sounding the alarm bells for decades I have every reason to believe them
Which is odd because NOAA has like, no regulatory power. The regulated community kinda loves agencies like NOAA because they can tell them to pound sand over anything and that’s that
They’re not the EPA or anything.
Florida wants bombs I guess.
*half bombs
I wonder which half
We’re talking about Matt Gaetz, so probably the useless half. Maybe the packaging.
with enough bombs they can blow up the next hurricane before it becomes a problem for the people living in florida
There are actually theories about dissapaiting hurricanes with nukes. A second Trump admin might just try it.
all you need is a fat sharpie…
or maybe some idiot just forgot to turn on the faucet while it was still over the ocean…
Georgia too right? Biden offered federal assistance and the governor said no, then immediately turned around and said Biden isn’t helping
Traitorous sexual predator.
They knew it would pass so they all got to pretend at being “fiscally responsible”. I guarantee they’ll go home to their districts and take credit for every penny doled out.
Because they lie a lot.
deleted by creator
Because they constantly tell lies.
It’s an older
codetweet, but it checks out.Can someone please make me understand how people like Gaetz, MTG and all these very obviously either stupid as fuck, or evil as fuck people keep getting voted in? My brain can’t ever wrap around this. Am I crazy or is there more to elections in politics. Like how in the fuck does a man like Ted Cruz keep getting reelected over and over by people?
The uneducated can vote.
Racists vote. Old people vote. Sometimes they’re the same person.
As they always teach over at Electoral College.
Belief is largely social. This is true for all of us, to some extent. It doesn’t matter much when the social belief is “our baseball team is the best”. Unfortunately, the republican worldview is afactual and hateful. That’s really the bulk of it, I think. People identify with republicans, or with their neighbors that are republicans, and that’s the most important thing. More important than facts or truth.
Also there’s a lot of authoritarians. They want a strong in-group and an out-group to hurt.
So when someone says like “So-and-so Republican is a rapist, felon, and liar” that smashes right into the “my in-group is important, and if i reject my in-group I will die alone” part of the brain. So the facts bounce off and they write you off as an asshole.
Fixing that seems difficult. Appealing to a shared group identity can work (eg: we’re all americans here and we want to make the best of our great country, together). You see this sometimes where someone hates some out-group, and then actually meets a member and spends time with them. Now that person might be part of the in-group, and things have to shift around.
The other thing that changes minds is trauma. Horrible trauma. If your house gets blown apart by a hurricane, that might be enough for you to reevaluate your world view.
Anyway, the oatmeal did a comic about belief: https://theoatmeal.com/comics/believe Here’s a free book about authoritarians: https://theauthoritarians.org/
Love this, thanks for sharing!
In their districts, they have the right letter next to their names on the ballot. Also, the “own the libtards.”
My Uber reductionist explanation.
I get you scared. You vote for the cure to what I’m scaring you on.
Most people, except the very scared, don’t vote.
Republicans say “hell is coming unless you vote for me”, which gets people scared and thus voting
Democrats, “well try our hardest to build helpful systems that make the middle class grow again” … People stop listening and don’t vote…
That’s how
Fuck. 2020 got more people voting than any other presidential election in recent history and it STILL didn’t break 50% of legal voters.
Maybe dems should say stuff in their ads like “we don’t want a fascist regime. This is America. Vote blue to fire these morherfuckers”
As Olbermann asked about MTG’s district,“Does the entire district resemble the movie Deliverance?”
Because the people voting are dumber than these fucktards.
They are so fucking dumb it would be hilarious if it wasn’t so fucking dumb
One can only guess that there is a large and chronically uninformed body of people that only get their information from the bad guys’ personal propaganda machine.
deleted by creator
Idk If I was a pedophile I would have my head in the sand and never show my face again. Matt Gaetz is a thing that happened though I guess. 🤔
Wha…? Why would they…? Was there something else in the bill that they didn’t like?
It would make the Biden administration look good
yeah, when you look close enough it’s amazing how often that that answer is the only one, and how blatantly they do it.
they say democracy dies in the dark, but if like 10% more people actually watched cspan when major votes take place i don’t think we’d keep many Republican politicians. it’s an amazingly one sided effort to obstruct every single Democratic policy no matter what it is. they threw the toy over the fence, sat down, and started screaming and shitting like 10 years ago and nothing positive has gotten done since. they are literally the party of intentionally breaking the government.
there’s no way that many Americans actually want that…
Also, projection. They would withhold funding for disasters in blue states, so obviously Democrats would do the same to red states.
What else was in the bill?
*edit: 8 or 9 upvotes, downvotes, and no replies. Didn’t realize I asked such a polarizing question. Some bills are totally crap. They’ll be earmarked to hell. A bill could have “all animal shelters must be non kill” earmarked with “give isreal US nuclear arsenal and the OK to launch them” then when a party votes no on it, the other party screams out “those guys want to kill kittens and puppies!”
So I just wanted to know what else was in the bill.
deleted by creator
florida needs like 50 billion USD?
That seems like a lot of money…
I’m tired of paying for those welfare queens
Don’t give it to them. They will just spend it on blackjack and hookers.
Wait Florida or Ukraine?
if the need didnt exist…
