Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Gov't Proposes "National Climate Service" For the US

Posted by timothy on from the overcast-with-a-chance-of-death dept.

Standing Bear writes "NPR reports that 140 years after the creation of the National Weather Service, the US government is proposing the creation of a similar service that will provide long-term projections of how climate will change. 'We are actually getting millions of requests a year already about: How should coastal cities plan for sea-level rise? How should various other agencies in the federal government or in state governments make plans for everything from roads to managing water supplies?' says NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco. 'And a lot of that is going to be changing as the climate changes.' Under the plan, the new NOAA Climate Service would incorporate some of the agency's existing laboratories and research programs, including the National Climatic Data Center, the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and the National Weather Service's Historical Climate Network. Meanwhile, as plans for the new climate service shape up, NOAA launched a new Web site, climate.gov, designed to provide access to a wide range of climate information."

17 of 599 comments (clear)

  1. When... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    When will these people learn that their gig is up? It's time to come up with another get-rich-quick scheme!

    1. Re:When... by GadgetCatChair · · Score: 0, Troll

      I'm not a man to believe in 9/11 government conspiracies, but believing that global warming is a tool used by lying progressives to get large government control is not so far fetched. The great battle right now is between those who love their freedom and those who would enslave the citizens of the United States. President Obama doesn't care for us, he just wants to lull us into foolish submission with government controlled labor.

    2. Re:When... by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 0, Troll

      liar, you don't know of "thousands of other studies"

      I never claimed to, so how does that make me a liar? I only asserted that they exist.

      the truth is...

      Liar, you're simply making assertions with no citations to back them up.

      It may seem hypocritical, but you know what? You guys started it. The original post I was replying to asserted it was a "farce", yet provided absolutely no evidence to support that claim. I'm simply responding in kind -- if you can assert something without evidence, so can I, and we can have a shouting match.

      Or maybe, just maybe, someone will start bringing some facts into the discussion. Scroll up a bit, you'll find some actual intelligence (not mine) involved.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    3. Re:When... by dangitman · · Score: -1, Troll

      Right, so you choose not to believe one insane conspiracy theory, but buy into a different insane conspiracy theory. That makes you no different than the 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Being a delusional moron is not something to be proud of.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    4. Re:When... by garg0yle · · Score: 0, Troll

      That said, if the scientific data weren't so miserably absent on BOTH sides of this debate, I might actually be willing to side with one or the other but as it stands I'm definitely on the fence about the whole situation.

      Congratulations, you're a skeptic. Which, these days, means you're tarred as a denier, and thus are no better than a baby-killer according to some folks. Personally, I view healthy skepticism as a good thing, but apparently we're not allowed to do that any more. Must have missed that memo.

      --
      Modding "-1, Troll" is not a proper response if you disagree with me. Try reason.
    5. Re:When... by timmarhy · · Score: 0, Troll
      Don't try hide behind the dictionary, the intention of calling people "deniers" is to try tar them with the same brush as holocost deniers. I'm well aware of what your trying to do with that turn of phrase. "denier" isn't a term you use when someone disagree's with you in the scientific community, it's a term religous zealots use.

      And that post is the first time i've mentioned Al Gore, you twit.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    6. Re:When... by Third+Position · · Score: 0, Troll

      He won the Peace Prize, not a Nobel Prize in a science. Once again, it's the science and the views of scientists in the field that we care about. What is hard for you to understand about this?

      You mean, you might care about the views of scientists in the field. My observation has been that the scientists in that field are only slightly less trust-worthy that priests and snake-handlers. Sorry, but I don't accept "cuz the scientists say so" as the alpha and omega of veracity.

      If I had a nickel for every stupid idea I've seen promoted by scientists in my lifetime, I'd be able to retire to a nice warm climate myself. Lobotomies and eugenics, anyone?

      --
      American Third Position
      Finally, a real choice!
    7. Re:When... by FourthAge · · Score: 0, Troll

      Naturally present day events resemble the things in that book, and others like it.

      That's because the statists and the collectivists always operate in the same way: (1) There is a crisis! (2) Only the Government can resolve it, and then only if we are all willing to put aside politics and work together! (3) For the common good, the people must be compelled to work together by any means necessary.

      Over time, they have changed the nature of the crisis, but the tactics have not changed. What is really sad is how easily some Slashdotters are fooled by Government propaganda. The same people who railed against the Patriot Act and the War on Drugs are falling over themselves to tell everyone who is even slightly cynical about this blatant Government job-creation scheme that they're a Nazi Fox News viewer.

      "dangitman" and those who modded him up are a case in point. According to them, if you don't buy into the Government bullshit, then you must be an "arrogant asshole" and "stupid". Unlike them. According to the Government, being an AGW believer is definitive proof that you are (1) right about everything, and (2) really smart.

      --
      The tao of democracy: the government you can vote for is not the real government.
  2. Re:Long predictions by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Tax consumption, consumption goes, less is made, less pollution, less climate change.

    So if we tax government corruption and waste, we'll get rid of it forever? Can I add a surtax on the macarena and line-dancing, too? What about light beer or the designated hitter rule? Can we get rid of those as well?

    --
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
  3. Phil Jones threw CO2 climate warming under the bus by jvillain · · Score: 0, Troll

    Well Phil Jones just threw most of the man made climate warming story under the bus.

  4. Fix it quick! by digitalcowboy · · Score: 0, Troll

    AGW/CC has always been a lie and always will be a lie.

    Before you reply to me think, "We've always been at war with East Asia."

    This is about government control and "socializing" to that end. You're all sheep if you buy this horseshit after all this time and after all that's been revealed.

    You're also pretty damn arrogant - and ignorant - if you think your Prius - or my Suburban - makes a whit of difference to this "climate."

  5. that sucking sound by Dolphinzilla · · Score: 0, Troll

    is my bank account paying for more useless, pointless, farcical government programs ! For heavens sake, the weatherman can't predict the weather a week in advance, why on earth would I believe they can predict it for a century from now...

    1. Re:that sucking sound by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      Confucius say "There is difference between weather and climate." And NASA say, too.

  6. gay ninjas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    are you a gay ninja?

  7. Let's see how they make this political by ScottFree2600 · · Score: 1, Troll

    This smells like another attempt to get politicians or eco-opportunists into "the climate business".Remember, they almost pulled it off. It was really disappointing and scary to me that there are some out there who wold pull any kind of stunt and use any tactic to support using allegedly "settled science" to achieve very questionable political goals. Once again, don't get your science from Politicians, celebrities or lawyers. Examine why you believe what you do. Honest skepticism is healthy. To those who call skeptics "deniers" (like holocaust deniers), please keep your religion to yourself.True scientists are skeptical, as they should be.

  8. Re:The Scientific Quandary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    You mean like how you believe in the discredited IPCC 2007 report and all the junk the CRU and NASA have shoveled for 20 years?

    Yep, some people will believe anything. Some of them will even believe it after it has been proven false.

    I've got a bridge to sell you and it'll stop AGW if you buy it.

  9. Another "wheather is not climate" statement by janwedekind · · Score: 0, Troll

    Everytime the summer is hot or a storm hits the coast it is blamed on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). But when it gets cold, suddenly "wheather is not climate". When the satellites are showing no warming for the last 10 years we are told that "there is inter-decadal variability".

    If we ignore the science (greenhouse fingerprint, solar forcing, ...) and just have a look at popular beliefs: Just 40 years ago the "discussion" was tilted the other way and we were anticipating the beginning of the next ice age.