News

23305 readers

3708 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

476

Trump will dismantle key US weather and science agency, climate experts fear (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

63 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Plan to break up Noaa claims its research is ‘climate alarmism’ and calls for commercializing forecasts, weakening forecasts

Climate experts fear Donald Trump will follow a blueprint created by his allies to gut the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa), disbanding its work on climate science and tailoring its operations to business interests.

Joe Biden’s presidency has increased the profile of the science-based federal agency but its future has been put in doubt if Trump wins a second term and at a time when climate impacts continue to worsen.

The plan to “break up Noaa is laid out in the Project 2025 document written by more than 350 rightwingers and helmed by the Heritage Foundation. Called the Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, it is meant to guide the first 180 days of presidency for an incoming Republican president.

The document bears the fingerprints of Trump allies, including Johnny McEntee, who was one of Trump’s closest aides and is a senior adviser to Project 2025. “The National Oceanographic [sic] and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) should be dismantled and many of its functions eliminated, sent to other agencies, privatized, or placed under the control of states and territories,” the proposal says.

That’s a sign that the far right has “no interest in climate truth”, said Chris Gloninger, who last year left his job as a meteorologist in Iowa after receiving death threats over his spotlighting of global warming.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 20 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

After thinking about it, I've come to the conclusion that climate change is actually completely in the far right's advantage:

-It'll make the poor poorer and the rich richer

-It can be used as a "demon" to scare people into submission, or the other way around, by denying it

-It can be used to divide the populace further along the lines of race, age, education.... (and not along class lines, as it should be)

-It will exacerbate current issues and divides between well-off nations and poor ones

It's win/win for them. The other political side actually has to be able to prove things somewhat in order to use climate change as something to garner votes. For the far right, it suffices to either pretend it doesn't exist or to laugh at it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

This polarizing aspect of the whole thing has really confused me for this very reason as well as a few others. I think about it a lot like flat earth. In both cases the opponents or "deniers" for lack of a better term point largely to this like conglomerate corpo science-y entity that has a rooted financial interest in spreading these lies all for monetary gain. This idea that "big science" genuinely wants people to believe in a fake scenario of the earth's clomate getting fucked by humans is so strange. And this works politically too.

Like I don't have any research to back this up but I'd bet my left ass cheek that the large majority of climate scientists AS WELL as climate progressive politicians would absolutely love there to be completely no issue with climate change. Given the choice, not having to worry at all about that for the present and future would just be a big load off every one's plate. Now I'm sure there are some people that have a lot of their eggs in the renewable, green energy basket and could stand to gain prosperity from society moving in a green energy direction. There's no doubt. But something tells me that they are more or less cancelled out by the amount of people who are already profiting or stand to profit more from petroleum based energy means.

I just don't get the whole realistic motive behind scientists and politicians pushing an agenda that they know to be false. Do people really think scientists don't have anything better to do than just make stuff up? Genuinely? And it's not like just a few of them. We're talking well over 90% are pushing this fake agenda. That is complete and utter market saturation lol. I just can't fathom how that would work. Just like the flat earth thing, what is there to gain from this for the large majority of these people? Like why?