Trump Would Gut and Privatize US Climate and Weather Agency, Experts Fear

This story was originally published in the Guardian, and is reproduced as part of Climate Desk’s collaboration. Climate experts are concerned that Donald Trump will follow the blueprint of his allies and gut the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This would include disbanding NOAA’s work on climate science and tailoring their operations to business interests. Joe Biden’s presidency has raised the profile of the

 [[{“value”:”This article was originally published by the Guardian, and it is a part of the Climate Desk collaboration that has been shared below.
Climate experts fear Donald Trump will reshape the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ), disband its efforts in the field of climate science, and adapt its operations to business interests.
Although Joe Biden’s presidency has raised the profile of the science-based national agency, its future will be in jeopardized if Trump wins a second term and at a time when the effects of climate change continue to worsen.
The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 document, which was written by more than 350 right-wingers, sets out the plan to “break up NOAA.” Called the” Mandate for Leadership: The Traditional Promise, “it is meant to guide the first 180 days of presidency for an approaching Republican president.
They seem to think that if you stop talking about climate change, which is one of those things,” I think they will only disappear.”
The document contains the names of Trump supporters, including Johnny McEntee, one of Trump’s closest aides and top 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,” according to Chris Gloninger, who left his job as a meteorologist in Iowa next year after receiving death threats for his coverage of global warming.
NOAA is described as a” massive operation that has become one of the key drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as a result, is detrimental to future US prosperity,” according to the guidebook chapter detailing the strategy, which was recently highlighted by E&amp, E News. ” It was written by Thomas Gilman, a former Chrysler executive who during Trump’s presidency was chief financial officer for NOAA’s parent body, the commerce department.
Gilman writes that one of NOAAs six key offices, the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, should be” disbanded “because it issues” philosophical “science and is” the source of much of NOAA’s climate alarmism. Gilman says the data from the National Hurricane Center must be presented dispassionately, without any adjustments to either party’s position in the climate debate.” Gilman admits it serves” critical public safety and business functions as well as intellectual functions.
But NOAA’s research and data are” essentially neutral right now,” said Andrew Rosenberg, a former NOAA official who is now a fellow at the University of New Hampshire”. It actually generally reports the science as the evidence accumulates, and it has been careful about reporting climate effects, he said. It’s no pushing some agenda.”
The rhetoric harkens back to the Trump administration’s scrubbing of climate crisis- relevant webpages from government websites and stifling climate scientists, said Gloninger, who now works at an economic consulting firm, the Woods Hole Group.
” What about air- quality forecasts in underrepresented communities? What about forecasts applicable to farmers that are n’t powerful farmers?”
It appears that if you stop talking about climate change, and I think that they really believe it will only disappear, he said.” It’s one of those things where it seems like… They say this term’ climate alarmism ‘…and also, the existential crisis of our lifetime is disturbing.”
The National Weather Service ( NWS), which provides weather and climate forecasts and warnings, is also housed at NOAA. Gilman calls for the service to” completely commercialize its forecasting operations.”
He goes on to say that Americans now rely on private weather forecasters, and he particularly mentions AccuWeather in a PR release the business issued, claiming that” studies have found that private company forecasts and warnings are more reliable” than those from the public sector. ( The mention is noteworthy because Trump once appointed the former CEO of AccuWeather to lead NOAA, but his choice was quickly voided. )
The claims come amid years of attempts from US conservatives to help personal companies enter the forecasting arena—proposals that are” crap,” said Rosenberg.
All people can currently get high-quality forecasts for nothing from the NWS. Important programming might no longer be available to those in whom business executives do n’t see value, Rosenberg said, but if only private companies with a profit motive conducted forecasts.
” What about air- quality forecasts in underrepresented communities? What about the forecasts that non-rich farmers can get? Storm- surge forecasts in communities that are n’t rich? “he said”. The majority of climate change is caused by the lack of resources in Black and Brown communities. Are they going to be getting the exact service?”
Private companies like Google, thanks to technological advancements in artificial intelligence, may now indeed be producing more exact forecasts, said Andrew Blum, author of the 2019 book The Weather Machine: A Journey Inside the Forecast. Those secret forecasts, however, are all built on NOAA’s data and resources.
The exchange of weather data between nations might be hampered by a leased system, which would produce less reliable results.
Thoroughly outsourcing forecasting could also threaten the accuracy of forecasts, said Gloninger, who pointed to AccuWeather’s well- known 30- and 60- day forecasts as one example. Since peer-reviewed research has discovered that there is an eight to ten day limit on the accuracy of forecasts, it has been found that these forecasts are simply accurate about half the time.
” You can say it’s going to be 75 degrees out on May 15, but we’re not at that ability best now in meteorology,” said Gloninger. He claimed that outsourcing forecasting could encourage readings even further into the future to boost views and profits.
Commercializing weather forecasts —an” remarkable example of multilateral, American- led, post, scientific achievement “—would even betray the very spirit of the endeavor, said Blum.
John F. Kennedy advocated for a global weather- forecasting system in the post-second world war era that relied on extraordinary levels of clinical exchange. The exchange of weather data between nations might be hampered by a leased system, which would produce less reliable results.
The establishment of weather forecasting itself highlights the danger of enraging profit-driven businesses, Rosenberg said. Business interests frequently viciously criticized British Vice- Admiral Robert FitzRoy when he first introduced the idea of forecasts to the United Kingdom in the Victorian era. The reason was that workers were hesitant to risk their lives because they were aware of the dangers of the weather.
” The ship owners said, well, that means maybe I lost a day’s income because the fishermen would n’t go out and risk their lives when there was a forecast that was really bad, so they did n’t want a forecast that would give them a day’s warning,” Rosenberg said”. The profit motive ended up trying to push people to do things that were dangerous…There’s a lesson it.””}]] The Guardian previously published this story, which is available around as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Climate experts predict that Donald Trump will abandon the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ( NOAA ) and change its operations to fit business needs. Joe Biden’s presidency has increased the profile of the 

This story was originally published in the Guardian, and is reproduced as part of Climate Desk’s collaboration. Climate experts are concerned that Donald Trump will follow the blueprint of his allies and gut the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. This would include disbanding NOAA’s work on climate science and tailoring their operations to business interests. Joe Biden’s presidency has raised the profile of the

I’m sorry, but the text provided does not contain enough information to be paraphrased. Can you please provide more context or a longer excerpt for me to work with? The text is a jumble of characters that cannot be paraphrased. “Sometimes the heart sees what is invisible to the eye.”