Contact your representative's office. Your senators as well if you're able. Understanding that beyond climate, from a weather perspective, their work helps improve forecasts is important for folks in the political arena.
We are $38 trillion in debt with interest compounding every second. We ALL have to get real. I know NCAR enough to know that what needs to be preserved can be consolidated elsewhere for savings and efficiencies. I also am sure that the bespoke weather outlets will figure out machine learning in ways that benefit everyone. All of us with our college degrees and experience need to quite being saps for govt spending and think about other ways to get things done. The risks we face are not what you think or believe. The risks are a weak fisc and currency that enables the worst intentions among bad actors on the world stage.
I think it an excellent idea to reduce or eliminate this kind of left wing bureaucracy and tax payer money waste whenever possible. Unfortunately, under the previous regimes in DC, these agencies have become hotbeds of left wing, progressive "climate change" mania and alarmism. I applaud this move, but I know and accept those of the other political world view disagree, but for now we are winning when before we were losing.
And as for the current and projected streak of beautiful, dry, warm, and sunny weather where I live, I am most grateful and thankful.
If you read (and understood) this piece, you would see that improving forecasts through data and scientific study would save money for all, not to mention lives.
If so, then they should stay clear of left wing politics. Here is what one of the country's leading climate alarmist said: "The center is “quite literally our global mothership,” Katharine Hayhoe, a Texas Tech University professor and chief scientist for the Nature Conservancy, wrote on X." I rest my case. And I assure you with my education and experience, I can understand all of this, what about you?
Katherine is an expert on climate and someone who actually works to try and get people to understand in ways beyond alarmism. However, she is correct in that it is the global mothership for ALL atmospheric science research. You would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater by disbanding it, and what you'd save in (what you view as) less alarmism you'd more than cost yourself in economic loss due to less forecast improvements with time. It's a classic example of burning everything down because you don't like it rather than working to reform it in an organized, practical manner, which would be fine even if you disagreed with some of the motivations.
Over the years, I have found her to be a religious zealot who views "climate change" in mostly unscientific ways and preaches her religion to others. This is far from how a respectable scientist should be in communications on this highly politicized issue. AI says this about her:
"How her faith influences her climate work:
Biblical Mandate: She connects climate action to biblical stewardship, seeing the Earth as God's creation that we are called to care for.
Love for Others: Her faith drives her concern for climate justice, emphasizing that climate change harms the most vulnerable, which aligns with Christian teachings to love and serve the poor.
Bridging Divides: She uses shared values like faith, family, and community to talk to skeptical audiences, explaining that climate change isn't just an environmental issue but a human one.
Moral Imperative: For Hayhoe, caring for the climate is a way to live out her faith, not a contradiction to it, making it a "matter of loving our neighbour".
Actionable Hope: Her message often centers on finding hope and practical solutions by starting conversations rooted in shared values and love, as detailed in her book Saving Us."
So, I do not respect her scientific positions at all, if you do, fine, that is your choice.
As I said before being censored, I have more than enough advanced science education and career experience to understand this piece. What is your educational background and career experience in this science?
somewhere we forgot that long term thinking works. Cest la vie.
Thanks Matt
To whom can we write to try to save NCAR?
Thanks
Contact your representative's office. Your senators as well if you're able. Understanding that beyond climate, from a weather perspective, their work helps improve forecasts is important for folks in the political arena.
We are $38 trillion in debt with interest compounding every second. We ALL have to get real. I know NCAR enough to know that what needs to be preserved can be consolidated elsewhere for savings and efficiencies. I also am sure that the bespoke weather outlets will figure out machine learning in ways that benefit everyone. All of us with our college degrees and experience need to quite being saps for govt spending and think about other ways to get things done. The risks we face are not what you think or believe. The risks are a weak fisc and currency that enables the worst intentions among bad actors on the world stage.
I think it an excellent idea to reduce or eliminate this kind of left wing bureaucracy and tax payer money waste whenever possible. Unfortunately, under the previous regimes in DC, these agencies have become hotbeds of left wing, progressive "climate change" mania and alarmism. I applaud this move, but I know and accept those of the other political world view disagree, but for now we are winning when before we were losing.
And as for the current and projected streak of beautiful, dry, warm, and sunny weather where I live, I am most grateful and thankful.
If you read (and understood) this piece, you would see that improving forecasts through data and scientific study would save money for all, not to mention lives.
If so, then they should stay clear of left wing politics. Here is what one of the country's leading climate alarmist said: "The center is “quite literally our global mothership,” Katharine Hayhoe, a Texas Tech University professor and chief scientist for the Nature Conservancy, wrote on X." I rest my case. And I assure you with my education and experience, I can understand all of this, what about you?
Katherine is an expert on climate and someone who actually works to try and get people to understand in ways beyond alarmism. However, she is correct in that it is the global mothership for ALL atmospheric science research. You would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater by disbanding it, and what you'd save in (what you view as) less alarmism you'd more than cost yourself in economic loss due to less forecast improvements with time. It's a classic example of burning everything down because you don't like it rather than working to reform it in an organized, practical manner, which would be fine even if you disagreed with some of the motivations.
Over the years, I have found her to be a religious zealot who views "climate change" in mostly unscientific ways and preaches her religion to others. This is far from how a respectable scientist should be in communications on this highly politicized issue. AI says this about her:
"How her faith influences her climate work:
Biblical Mandate: She connects climate action to biblical stewardship, seeing the Earth as God's creation that we are called to care for.
Love for Others: Her faith drives her concern for climate justice, emphasizing that climate change harms the most vulnerable, which aligns with Christian teachings to love and serve the poor.
Bridging Divides: She uses shared values like faith, family, and community to talk to skeptical audiences, explaining that climate change isn't just an environmental issue but a human one.
Moral Imperative: For Hayhoe, caring for the climate is a way to live out her faith, not a contradiction to it, making it a "matter of loving our neighbour".
Actionable Hope: Her message often centers on finding hope and practical solutions by starting conversations rooted in shared values and love, as detailed in her book Saving Us."
So, I do not respect her scientific positions at all, if you do, fine, that is your choice.
As I said before being censored, I have more than enough advanced science education and career experience to understand this piece. What is your educational background and career experience in this science?