Trump’s NOAA Pick Gets Climate Change, But Could Still Weaken Key Science Agency

There is some hope for NOAA and actual science with Trump picking Barry Myers, CEO of Accweather for the head of the agency who understands and accepts human activity is indeed changing the climate. The downside is he supports privatizing weather data, this could lead to NOAA and the NWS being sold off or dismantled in lieu of commercial for profit weather guessing companies like The Weather Channel and Accuweather.

It also needs to be noted that Myers is not a scientist, he is a businessman.

m.huffpost.com...

Unlike all of his predecessors, Barry Myers, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is not a scientist.

Yet unlike nearly every other environmental agency head picked by the current White House, the chief executive of the forecasting company AccuWeather understands that climate change is real and caused by humans.

“If ice is melting, ice is melting, and one’s opinion about it doesn’t matter,” Myers said Wednesday morning at a confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. “We can’t dispute the facts once they’re in front of us, and we need to act upon them.”

....

The 74-year-old businessman has complained in the past about publicly funded products rivaling his company’s services. “We work hard every day competing with other companies and we also have to compete with the government,” Myers told ABC News in May 2005.

That same year, AccuWeather spent $40,000 lobbying the House, Senate and Commerce Department ― which includes NOAA ― on “commercial weather industry issues,” according to a lobbying disclosure first reported by CNN. Then-Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), who in 2005 introduced a bill aimed at preventing NOAA and the National Weather Service from competing with some services offered by private companies, received donations from Barry Myers and his brother, Joel Myers, who founded AccuWeather.

This is good. We do need to be concerned about our environment. This Climate change stuff is a big boom for scientists on both side of the issue. It supplies scientists with a lot more capital to work with. I kind of think it sounds like a very high ranking scam myself. They keep lots more scientists working when there is conflict between them. So, is that actually the conspiracy we should be looking at, not climate change at all but a big increase in scientific studies and research on each side being created. I bet billions of extra dollars have been given to the organizations doing research...and nothing has been done to fix the real issues of why our bio-dome is collapsing. If the economy cannot be protected then why bother with all the research. Economy and ecology come into direct conflict most times, economy always wins. What is happening is they are trying to stimulate sales of new stuff instead of fixing things properly.

This is about recognizing a problem that is there. The step tobsoving a problem is recognizing there is one.

Our CO2 emmisions are causing a large increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. This no doubt is a problem. Pollution and biodiversity are also problems that need to be addressed but not so much in this thread.

Alsi this is not about money or taxes, it is about science, observation/data.

originally posted by: jrod
The downside is he supports privatizing weather data, this could lead to NOAA and the NWS being sold off or dismantled in lieu of commercial for profit weather guessing companies like The Weather Channel and Accuweather.

That would indeed be bad, what with TWC hyping weather for ratings, naming winter storms, etc.
Seems like all the weather sites, and amateur weather folks use NOAA, NHC and other government wx pages....so that could be very bad.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

This site is actually quite awesome. If you're a weather nerd. But I'm not so I hardly ever look at it.
weather.hawaii.edu...

People can believe in whatever they want as long as it doesn’t cost me money or cede sovereignty to foreign powers.

a reply to: Metallicus

I believe that highways are good. Don't hate me.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Metallicus

I believe that highways are good.

Fortunately you have no power or influence.

a reply to: DontTreadOnMe

Hyping up minor storms for ratings is not only wrong but I feel it can lure some into a falae sense of security. If a person feels like they weathered a hyped minor hurricane really well, they are likely to ignore a major hurricane because they do not know the difference.

Both Accuweathere and The Weather Channel are guilty of hyping relatively minor storms.

a reply to: Metallicus

As opposed to you, of course.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Metallicus

As opposed to you, of course.

If either of us had any power or influence we wouldn’t need to spend our time arguing minutia and acting like self-righteous cock wombles on ATS.

a reply to: Metallicus

That sounds like one of them Aussy expressions.

Are you a closet Australian?

I knew it!

a reply to: jrod

I totally agree.
I rarely use either site anymore for my weather.....but it's getting harder to find accurate forecasting online...at least for me.
weatherunderground is not the same since TWC bought them....although their storm blogs are still pretty good, imho.

a reply to: jrod

The thing is, we are doing more than just causing problems with CO2. It is not us heating our houses and driving to work that overloads things. It is traveling to work far from our homes and shipping stuff across the world from China. It is about all the jets in the air dumping CO2 where there are no trees to absorb it. It is about ignoring the real problem by them making it impossible to start new businesses in America unless we pay a group a huge penalty even though the factories being replaced are in areas where there is a lot more pollution allowed to be emitted. It is a struggle from Europe of world Dominance, they want us dependent on them forever. One world government that can shut off our imports if we disagree.

Make products to last a long time, build more efficient factories and recycle as much as possible. Do not dump chemistry into the fields that destroys the Oceans ability or the lands ability to naturally lower carbon by tying it up the right way.

Science is greatly profiting by the Climate Change problem. Fix the problem, do not just pay for research. It does not have to be perfect, we just need to create factories here in America where emissions are more regulated. Or force China or Mexico to quickly comply with at least the regulations we have for emissions and pollution.

It is that simple.

a reply to: rickymouse

Regulation. Right.
That would the the EPA, right?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Metallicus

That sounds like one of them Aussy expressions.

Are you a closet Australian?

I knew it!

I do enjoy the Crocodile Dundee movies.

You may be on to something.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse

Regulation. Right.
That would the the EPA, right?

Yes, but there are some problems with the EPA too. They allow polution if the companies give them bribes that are renamed fines. If the EPA actually got their money from the government instead of fines, maybe the companies would spend the money to fix the problems. The companies know that the EPA needs the fines to operate, it is sort of a tax they pay. Over the period of five years, the smokestack could be payed for with the amount of bribes...oops...fines they pay.

My cousin was a Federal Mine inspector, I got the scoop from him on how the system works.

a reply to: rickymouse

EPA fines go to the US Treasury (as do any federal fines), not the EPA.
So, look at it as reducing the deficit.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rickymouse

EPA fines to to the US Treasury (as do any federal fines), not the EPA.
So, look at it as reducing the deficit.

They have quotas to bring in money for the EPA. Same with the FDA

a reply to: rickymouse

No they don't.