Is it the federal governments job to invest in protecting people that knowingly live in dangerous areas though? Not saying you shouldn't live there, but if you have a known risk and your local government and citizens cannot manage that risk - why should other citizens across the country pay for that? I understand those services were being delivered and now there might be a gap which is worrisome, but can it be solved at the state level? Or perhaps a coalition of states in the area? Is the NWS the only capable source of safety related weather information?
Did you ask for an example for honest debate, or to have a straw man you could pick apart? Because it seems like it's the latter. You're arguing his example and ignoring the larger point (likely intentionally).
Honest. I was pretty clear that I think it's a state issue but was interested in hearing whether it's feasible for the states to handle. If it isn't, then I could see that being a valid justification as a federal investment which is undergoing cuts that may affect the service.
> also weather does not usually confine itself to state boundaries.
This is a very good point. During the height of the 2011 Super Outbreak [0], April 27th, many of the strongest tornadoes crossed state lines. Taken as a whole, the event lasted four days and spawned tornadoes as far north as New York, south to Florida, east to Arkansas and west to the Carolinas.
Here's the thing: thanks to NWS forecasting and climate modeling, we had DAYS of warning that this was probably going to be a very bad storm. Obviously, they can't tell you X tornado is going to hit Y neighborhood, but from a standpoint of getting pre-warning out, we had lots of notice that things were going to be tough.
Historically, the deadliest tornado in American history was the Tri-State tornado [1], that started in Missouri and ended in Indiana.
None of these could be taken individually as they were all part of the same large mesoscale system. Lots of ingredients go into a good climate model, from which good predictions can be made.
On an "average" severe weather event, from where I live (Huntsville, northern part of Alabama just south of the Tennessee border), storms usually fire up across central Mississippi, move rapidly northeast across Alabama and dissipate or weaken as they move into eastern Tennessee.
I'm not sure what your point is. Is it that since every state benefits from NOAA data it's a sensible investment federally? What if a state requires 5x as many resources as another state? We already have a scenario where southern states draw a lot more than they contribute. We enable states to avoid managing their own citizen's welfare. A lot of people don't want to pay for other people to live in known tornado alleys, just like those people wouldn't want to pay for people to live on fault lines overlooking the ocean or in flood plains.
There is no place to live that is totally safe from bad weather. It is in the best interest of every citizen of the United States to pay for climate and weather modeling as disastrous weather can have massive impact on the economy. Also, from a moral standpoint, I personally don't mind shelling out some money to try and keep people safe.
As to your point about people living in areas where weather tends to be statistically more dangerous: If the government came to your house and forced you to leave, how would you feel about that?
Is the NOAA the only entity that could provide this data?
Nobody is suggesting forcing people to leave, but there are people that knowingly live in places that are drastically more dangerous just like there are a ton of people that decide to not take responsibility for their own health which creates a burden on everyone. I'm just suggesting that those local governments should take more responsibility. Or people pay extra for insurance. Some areas are so risky you can't even buy insurance to protect your home. So maybe those states should come up with a strategy rather than let the whole country pay.
My stock response to libertarians: "I'm glad that things have worked out great for you". Before you propose dismantling an existing arrangement that seems to be working just fine, you first have to tell us why the existing arrangement is faulty in a real practical sense. If you can not do that, then leave it the hell alone. We have enough ideologues fucking with things already.
If you cannot see why people knowingly living in dangerous areas that have local governments that aren't accountable for preparing for these disasters and then relying on a federal government is faulty then you're not looking at it objectively.
We've seen it unfold before where the federal government is too late and more people die than should have given the circumstances. It enables states to defer the safety of their own people it depends on to function.
Most things should be at the state level. And you're wrong about libertarians. It's not about things "went well for me screw everyone else". It's about pushing responsibility to the states where it's supposed to be which is what I was proposing. Your rude stock response just means you aren't open to a discussion and are consumed by your own biases.
The people who live in Manhattan know that they are a prime target for terrorists. Is it the government's job to invest in protecting those people because it was their choice to live and work in Manhattan? /s
