NOAA Has Value, Dammit!

One of the things I tell the students during Orientation on the first night is that Geology is a science class, and we will leave the political insanity to PoliSci (or Psychology). I promise the kids I’ll only bring up politics when the political activities are so scientifically outrageous that I need to share them in the interest of maintaining a balanced approach to coexisting with the earth. This has become much more of a challenge over the past decade as science has come under attack from certain right-leaning acronyms.

I make the same promise to you!

So I’m sorry, but this post (as have a few others) will deviate from this promise, and I am compelled to pivot to a discussion of Donald Trump and the 2024 election.

(A smidgen of background: I have to confess that, having followed him closely, I tend to take Trump’s statements with very few grains of salt. I really don’t believe much of what he has to say (I’m not sure even he believes in much of what he has to say, which may be a big part of my problem), and have come to the realization that his position on just about everything is usually based on two things: who was the last (and/or loudest) voice to work his ear; and what would the policy do to help him advance his brand. One only has to watch his waffling and flip-flops on the Florida abortion legislation earlier this week — four policy shifts in one day — to possibly understand my concerns.)

Anyway, this rant was prompted by an article (More on what Project 2025 will destroy) that I read from Joyce Vance — a retired federal prosecutor who puts out a political blog titled Civil Discourse. Yes, she is fairly anti-MAGA in her leanings, but in my defense I also follow several right-wing blogs and tune in regularly to Fox news, in the hopes of keeping an open mind and getting both sides of the rapidly evolving political discourse. I encourage you to do the same…

Ms. Vance — as are apparently many others — is concerned about the Project 2025 manifesto put out by the Heritage Foundation. In case you are not familiar with this, it is a 900-page document detailing policy proposals and projects for the next conservative administration — presumably in 2025 (clever name, huh?).

Project 2025 is pretty far out there with regard to what they propose as policy for the new president starting next year. The Heritage Foundation makes no bones about it: Donald Trump will be in the White House and will use this as the blueprint for his second term (and possibly beyond — as I understand it, a proposal advanced by one of the conservative “Think Tanks” that authored the document would abolish the 22nd Amendment that limits a president to only two terms).

Project 2025 covers a lot of territory, and proposes massive and fundamental changes in how our government works — PLEASE get yourself up to speed on this so you can make an informed choice on 5 November! I could go on and on, but one specific proposal discussed in Ms. Vance’s article really got to me, and prompts this post (I recommend reading her article, and follow the links for additional documentation).

Along with abolishing the Department of Education and federal support of public schools (as well as the two-term limit for Mr. Trump, and many other governmental programs), Project 2025 calls to the abolition of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Say what?

NOAA does many things that are critical to our country (and world). It puts the power (and funding) of the federal government firmly behind such topics as weather and climate, the oceans and atmosphere, fisheries management, severe storms, coastal restoration, and even such mundane tasks as predicting whether you can expect blue skies for Sunday’s picnic with your kids, or will have to cancel due to the expected monsoon.

One has to wonder about the logic behind cutting the agency. Is NOAA a haven for the Radical Left? Too woke? Another way to stick it to the Democrats? Or the tried-and-true fallback: “We need to balance the budget so something has to go.”

To steal a passage from Ms. Vance which expands on this:

…NOAA oversees the National Weather Service, so Project 2025 is on the attack against it because they claim it is “one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry” and, as such, a threat to “future U.S. prosperity … It should be broken up and downsized.” Project 2025 says that each of NOAA’s functions “could be provided commercially, likely at lower cost and higher quality.” If you rely on NOAA for warnings about tornadoes or hurricanes this is particularly alarming. The office that tracks hurricanes is singled out as a home of “climate alarmism” on page 676.

Anyone who has followed my blog knows my thoughts regarding climate change. Click here for an index of earlier post if you need or want a refresher.

Needless to say, Project 2025 is not getting much traction with at least half of the electorate, including many of the independent swing voters who will likely decide who sits behind the Resolute desk come next January. Even Donald Trump, who claims to have never read it and doesn’t know anything about it, says it has nothing to do with him (how he can disavow P-2025 in the face of these contradictory statements should be a mystery to me, but it really isn’t).

Be that as it may, whatever your political and social leanings, I encourage you to do your research and due diligence, and then exercise your constitutional privilege on 5 November and vote.