Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Wednesday December 14 2016, @09:38PM   Printer-friendly
from the what's-the-opposite-of-progress dept.

The 114th Congress is wrapping up and though it will not be recognized as particularly productive. However, despite outward appearances, there were some truly bipartisan bills moving around. One of those was a bill to give the first meaningful overhaul of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in decades. It was to significantly bolster the ability to make medium-range forecasts (2 weeks to 2 years out) and it also addressed a number of issues that NOAA suffers from, such as an improvement in its hurricane and tornado research, it directed them to put sensors on subsea telecommunication cables to improve tsunami warnings, it expanded its efforts in uncovering prehistoric tsunamis, it ordered an evaluation of how well the public understands and responds to its cryptic system of "watch" and "warning" weather alerts, and it directed them to utilize weather data from outside their satellite system. The bill sailed through the Senate on 1 December and it was looking to do the same in the House until it became a victim of a regional water spat between Georgia, Florida and Alabama:

For decades, the states have battled over the Apalachicola River and its two tributaries, the Chattahoochee and Flint. In the 1950s, Georgia dammed the Chattahoochee to create Lake Lanier, which has fueled Atlanta's rapid growth. In Florida's view, this has reduced the freshwater reaching the Gulf of Mexico, causing brackish water and threatening oysters. The conflict has reached the highest levels, with the Supreme Court expected to rule next year on a lawsuit Florida has brought against Georgia.

When the bill was sent back to the House, a section was added by Senator Bill Nelson (D–FL) calling for a three-year study of the water management of the Apalachicola and on ways to improve the system with special emphasis on environmental protection. That addition drew the ire from the Georgia representatives, who viewed it as another attempt by Florida and Alabama to interfere in the dispute through congressional action and the bill was not brought up for a vote before the House adjourned for the remainder of the year. Because of the broad support for the bill, this is optimistically seen as a minor setback for science; however, since the bill did not make it to a vote by the end of the congressional session, it will have to start the whole legislative process over from scratch with the 115th Congress in January.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by dyingtolive on Wednesday December 14 2016, @10:17PM

    by dyingtolive (952) on Wednesday December 14 2016, @10:17PM (#441446)

    They also provide weather service, monitor resource conservation and drought surveying, amongst other services. It looks like their primary involvement on climate change is hosting the senior staff for the IPCC, a UN organization.

    Interestingly, they were proposed by a Republican.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Wednesday December 14 2016, @10:38PM

    by MostCynical (2589) on Wednesday December 14 2016, @10:38PM (#441451) Journal

    Not all Republicans are against science, or climate change, or AGW: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/many-more-republicans-now-believe-in-climate-change/ [scientificamerican.com]
    Not all Democrats are aligned, either: http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2016/10/18/how_do_the_parties_really_divide_on_science_109784.html [realclearscience.com]

    There seem to be precious few on either side who stand for much.

    --
    "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ikanreed on Wednesday December 14 2016, @11:07PM

      by ikanreed (3164) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 14 2016, @11:07PM (#441461) Journal

      No, certainly not everyone who aligns themselves with a party whose leader [nationalgeographic.com] and official 2016 platform [courier-journal.com] are denialist are themselves denialist, but you don't need to talk in universal truths to raise important points in a democracy.

      It's head-in-sand level material to do the "both sides are bad" spiel with respect to climate change.

  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday December 15 2016, @01:43AM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Thursday December 15 2016, @01:43AM (#441499)

    The proof is in the actions - the November election results could still yield surprising results: Newt was a vocal proponent of a moon base at one point, and he's back in circulation now.

    By and large, I expect "sciency" agencies to take it on the chin, unless they can show some direct short term ROI.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]