FML. NOAA is searching for terms like "climate," "methane," "nitrous oxide," "greenhouse gas," "climate science," "carbon," the "Paris Agreement." That's what my NOAA grants are focused on.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
It is impossible to understand ocean environments nor monitor or secure their resources for future generations without those terms. Eliminating those terms eliminates NOAA's mandate, which is the point.
I mean...in a way...it shows JUST how effective and powerful climate action is today, as a reality-check to their plans. That they would so blatantly target it as political opposition, like it is an "opponent" instead of just physics. 😜🙄
Just to clear phenomena like climate change don’t go away when scientists aren’t allowed to use the common descriptive label. Maybe no one should use the word cancer and see what happens.
They did this kind of thing socially/culturally with "covid" "sars-cov-2" "long covid" and "pandemic" and the vast majority of people seem happy to go along with pretending all of the above are either unproblematic or gone away. Doesn't bode well.
Kind of surprised “aluminum oxide” isn’t on the list, considering that it’s a direct cause of ozone depletion from the deorbiting of Starlink satellites.
Hope you have a plan B for personal income and well being. Cutting allocated climate funding is illegal, but doubt that means much to Putin's viceroy or his minions.
Is there a way to obfuscate these terms? Perhaps replacing common ones with a Latin equivalent, e.g., "calefaciens terra" (warming earth) one could avoid search-and-replace checkers. My gut tells me they would think it was just sciencey jargon and move on...these people aren't ones for detail
Comments
And if you fail to prove that because your study (obviously) shows otherwise? Publish it anyway.
not NO/NO2?
🤔🤣🙄