By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The National Science Foundation has announced plans to transfer control of the National Center for Atmospheric Research’s critical supercomputing facility to an unspecified third party. This move, part of a broader effort to dismantle the center, has raised concerns about disruptions to high-performance computing essential for weather and climate modeling. The facility supports approximately 1,500 researchers nationwide, contributing to improved extreme weather forecasts and other vital applications. Experts warn that fragmenting NCAR could jeopardize national interests and hinder NOAA’s ability to enhance its weather modeling capabilities.
Read the original article here
The Trump administration’s decision to pull supercomputers from a key weather and climate research center is being viewed with deep concern, with many seeing it as a systematic dismantling of crucial scientific research that could have profound economic and societal consequences for the nation. This move is not being interpreted by many as a neutral administrative decision, but rather as a deliberate act that undermines the country’s ability to understand and prepare for future challenges, both in terms of weather events and the broader implications of climate change.
There’s a palpable sense that this action is directly related to a broader agenda of dismantling or devaluing government-led scientific endeavors. The core argument is that by removing these powerful computing resources, which are essential for sophisticated climate modeling and weather forecasting, the administration is actively hindering the country’s capacity for accurate prediction and preparedness. This, in turn, is seen as a direct threat to the nation’s economic future, as reliable weather and climate information is vital for sectors like agriculture, disaster management, and infrastructure planning.
One of the most striking interpretations of this decision is that it’s not truly about weather or climate science itself, but rather about control over data and the potential for monetization. The idea being floated is that by disrupting public access to advanced research capabilities, the administration is creating an opening for private entities, potentially those with close ties to the administration, to take over these functions. This would then allow them to profit from selling weather reports or climate data, effectively turning a public good into a private revenue stream. The term “rent-seeking theater” has been used to describe this as a strategy for personal enrichment rather than public service.
Concerns are also being raised about the potential for this move to set the U.S. back significantly, with some drawing comparisons to the Middle Ages in terms of information access and reliance on less sophisticated methods. The idea that the country might return to a state where weather predictions are basic, perhaps even unreliable, is a significant worry. The accusation that this is simply “more grifting” is a recurring theme, suggesting that the motivations behind the decision are rooted in personal financial gain rather than the public interest.
The systematic nature of these actions is a point of emphasis for many. It’s being framed as a pattern of dismantling and destruction, with this supercomputer removal fitting into a larger picture of undermining government institutions. The fear is that this is a deliberate effort to obscure or negate the scientific evidence of climate change, thereby protecting existing power structures and industries that benefit from its denial. This is likened to smashing a smoke alarm because it might disrupt a pleasant evening, highlighting the short-sightedness and self-destructive potential of such actions.
The economic implications are particularly alarming to some, especially for industries heavily reliant on accurate forecasts. Farmers, who depend on precise weather predictions for planting and harvesting, and communities in disaster-prone areas, like the South and tornado alley, are identified as the groups most likely to suffer immediate and direct harm. These are, ironically, often seen as reliable voting blocs, leading to incredulity that such actions would be taken, as it appears to be a move that directly harms those who might support the administration.
The idea that this is a deliberate attempt to control information, similar to tactics employed by authoritarian regimes, is also being discussed. By removing the tools that generate “inconvenient truths,” such as the reality of climate change, the administration is seen as prioritizing political expediency and personal agendas over scientific accuracy and public safety. It’s being pointed out that climate data itself is apolitical, but the current administration appears to be treating it as a political weapon.
There’s a degree of bewilderment regarding the logistical specifics of removing such large and complex equipment, but the underlying sentiment is clear: the intention is to cripple the research capabilities. The underlying motivation, as many see it, is to dismantle the infrastructure that provides evidence for pressing global issues. The potential for privatization of these essential services is a significant concern, with the idea that the government could eventually have to purchase these capabilities back from private companies at inflated costs.
The notion of “Don’t look up,” a reference to the film where a planet-destroying comet is ignored by political leaders, is being invoked. This signifies a fear that the administration is actively choosing to ignore critical scientific warnings, even when the consequences are potentially catastrophic. The phrase “carnage” is used to describe the anticipated fallout of such decisions, suggesting a widespread and devastating impact.
The question of what a “Russian Asset” might do is also being raised, implying that such actions align with strategies that would benefit foreign adversaries by weakening the United States. It’s pointed out that supercomputers were instrumental in confirming human activity as the cause of global warming, and removing them is seen as an attempt to erase that scientific consensus.
The move is also being framed as an effort to obscure data and deny the reality of climate change simply out of “disgust and hate of the truth.” The accusation that the administration is willing to “line their pockets while killing Americans” is a stark and potent condemnation. This is being positioned as a critical issue that the left should highlight in upcoming elections, urging people not to give up on addressing these problems. The long-term cost of cleaning up after such destructive policies is considered to be immense and long-lasting.
Finally, the idea of replacing sophisticated supercomputing with simpler, less reliable methods, like whiteboards and markers, is being used to sarcastically highlight the perceived regression. The ultimate concern is that the administration is actively trying to remove any capacity to study the climate, effectively blinding the nation to its own future challenges.