Thiel's arguments are largely about university research, much of which I agree with.
Jacob Carter's concerns are about USG research. I went through this in the early 80's when I was a science center director with NOAA and President Reagan tackled reducing government spending right after President Carter introduced the then-dreaded Senior Executive Service in Civil Service. The big budget numbers above are difficult to analyze w/o details of what's in and out. One thing is curious, though, of all the major agencies NOAA has a relatively small cut and it conducts the primary science behind climate change.
Thiel's arguments are largely about university research, much of which I agree with.
Jacob Carter's concerns are about USG research. I went through this in the early 80's when I was a science center director with NOAA and President Reagan tackled reducing government spending right after President Carter introduced the then-dreaded Senior Executive Service in Civil Service. The big budget numbers above are difficult to analyze w/o details of what's in and out. One thing is curious, though, of all the major agencies NOAA has a relatively small cut and it conducts the primary science behind climate change.
I think you need to debate Peter Thiel.
https://x.com/i/grok/share/5fqwIEyHsWmldUFfP2lpTCqPH
I appreciate the suggestion, but I don't think that would be a fruitful conversation. Peter Thiel is a venture capitalist, not a scientist.
Sadly, I think you just proved my point. Or at least confirmed my concerns.
I wouldn't trust recommendations to improve heart surgery if the manager of my bank made them.
Analogies are not arguments. Sadly you proved my point a second time.
Cool