410
If they killed off the free NOAA service, many people and businesses depending on this kind of service would need a new, commercial and probably expensive service. Profit!
this post was submitted on 28 Sep 2024
410 points (98.6% liked)
politics
18931 readers
3097 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, the article specified they didn't want to shut down NOAA but split it up and commercialize it. We know they want that because for profit companies will put profits over all else.
Oh you want to be updated on where that hurricane is? Why don't you sign up for our premium service and we will notify you when there are tornadoes in your area.
lol you people want to get rid of weather forecasting
Free commie government weather forecasting.
Scrap it then. It's helpful for everyone, but it especially helps the states that are adamantly and continuously trying to shoot at their own feet, and I'm tired of slapping the gun out of their hands.
Florida had 5.7 million vote for Trump, 5.3 million vote for Biden. The majority of Puerto Rico voted for Biden. Your response is to let all those people suffer to "teach them a lesson." You may need anger management classes.
Shit happens bro.
If the consequences of your actions are always prevented by someone for you, you start thinking your actions have no consequences.
The real reason that NOAA exists is to support businesses, like farms for instance. Weather forecasting adds to the bottom line and businesses depend on them.
Exactly. That's a service that some rich people could be making profit on and here we are just giving it away for the collective good of our society. Won't someone think of (financially screwing over) the farmers?
I think the idea behind getting rid of it with Project 2025 is the hard anti-climate change denial stance they want to push. And they think if we can't track the weather somehow nobody will notice that the weather events are increasing in intensity and occurrence rate.
As if corporations greed has one avenue of oppression
The purpose is literally described as both.
It's at the end of the article.
Most farmers are big business. Gone are the days of mom and pop farmers working a small plot. They all got bought out for retirement generations ago.
Is it’s all corporate “farmers” that are your “rich people”.
My understanding is that a lot of the big agribusiness is structured as a monopsony - all the people farming a particular crop have only one big Ag company they all have to sell their produce to and that company sets the price low enough that the farmers doing the actual growing for Big Ag are still getting screwed.
Most ag business, the people working the fields don’t own the land, the corporations do. Most of America’s farmland is owned by corporations and is worked on by employees being paid peanuts. (Frequently, undocumented immigrants whose status is being used to keep them from complaining about the illegally low wages.)
Anyone that tends a farm or ranch needs to know what the weather is like. It doesn't matter who they've sold to.
Okay, then get that. Let's say I'm that big business. It means that if I'm doling out weather knowledge for cost so high, then only big business can afford it, mostly because I'm the jackass that bought NOAA & plot too, together. That means that you can't be competitive unless your farming something I don't give a fuck about, today...