![OptimisticCon's tweet photo. For context, it's important to understand what is being cut here.
The National Science Foundation is a grant-making entity. It makes taxpayer-funded grants to recipients who then do the work of the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI). There's a PDF to study all the briefly summarized info here (bottom). Lines 10-21 on ES-1 (pg. 5) are your starting point.
The big OOI grant each year is to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, manager of the program. Woods Hole then makes grants, mainly to university programs in Oregon and Washington State. (Cf. Gov Inslee's former employment.)
OOI is an auxiliary effort to NOAA's Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), which spends its budget making grants and paying contractors to tend the IOOS apparatus. OOI has been in full operation (all arrays) since 2016. IOOS was launched in the 1990s as the US component of GOOS (below), and implemented in its current form ca. 2004.
See here (IOOS grant-making):
https://t.co/orKLpNTD4f
And here (IOOS history):
https://t.co/ebJRdHlZrP
OOI and IOOS are the US programs. They constitute the direct US contribution to the UN Global Ocean Observation System (GOOS) managed by UNESCO, launched in 1991. The impetus behind GOOS was what we now call climate change, with all its attendant programmatic concerns and associations.
The US contributes funds to GOOS through our general contributions to UNESCO, when we are in member status with UNESCO. When we're contributing, the US share of UNESCO funding is typically abut 22%.
GOOS is affiliated now with the international Group on Earth Observations (GEO), a body comprising more than 100 national governments established in 2002-2004, basically to funnel money to various entities involved in climate research and policy. See the screen cap on the focus of GEO (the 4th screen cap).
This is a network of programs intended to fund things. Its function is to move money around.
As with USAID, it's legitimate to inquire into what it's doing with the money, and interrupt this model of operations for one that may serve the needs of the Untied States better.
I'm a friend of oceanographic research. I also think it matters how the taxpayer is funding it, and who's being paid by the taxpayer to do it, with what priorities.
I don't know that the OOI/IOOS network has been the entrenched political problem USAID was. But it's not illegitimate to, as the police would put it, stop, question, and frisk.
The policy PDF for OOI (April 2008) [Correction: the document is an environmental assessment report for OOI. But the executive summary and parts of the main document contain background essential to understanding how OOI fits in the nested oceanographic research programs described on pg. ES-1 (pg. 5)]:
https://t.co/77IOWXaemM
Screen caps with useful summaries. On Screen cap 4, see the drop-down menu under "What we do/Explore by topic" (right half of screen).
Searches on all the key terms will bring up the background info you may be interested in.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HKJtncSbMAAtt_C.jpg)
![OptimisticCon's tweet photo. For context, it's important to understand what is being cut here.
The National Science Foundation is a grant-making entity. It makes taxpayer-funded grants to recipients who then do the work of the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI). There's a PDF to study all the briefly summarized info here (bottom). Lines 10-21 on ES-1 (pg. 5) are your starting point.
The big OOI grant each year is to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, manager of the program. Woods Hole then makes grants, mainly to university programs in Oregon and Washington State. (Cf. Gov Inslee's former employment.)
OOI is an auxiliary effort to NOAA's Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), which spends its budget making grants and paying contractors to tend the IOOS apparatus. OOI has been in full operation (all arrays) since 2016. IOOS was launched in the 1990s as the US component of GOOS (below), and implemented in its current form ca. 2004.
See here (IOOS grant-making):
https://t.co/orKLpNTD4f
And here (IOOS history):
https://t.co/ebJRdHlZrP
OOI and IOOS are the US programs. They constitute the direct US contribution to the UN Global Ocean Observation System (GOOS) managed by UNESCO, launched in 1991. The impetus behind GOOS was what we now call climate change, with all its attendant programmatic concerns and associations.
The US contributes funds to GOOS through our general contributions to UNESCO, when we are in member status with UNESCO. When we're contributing, the US share of UNESCO funding is typically abut 22%.
GOOS is affiliated now with the international Group on Earth Observations (GEO), a body comprising more than 100 national governments established in 2002-2004, basically to funnel money to various entities involved in climate research and policy. See the screen cap on the focus of GEO (the 4th screen cap).
This is a network of programs intended to fund things. Its function is to move money around.
As with USAID, it's legitimate to inquire into what it's doing with the money, and interrupt this model of operations for one that may serve the needs of the Untied States better.
I'm a friend of oceanographic research. I also think it matters how the taxpayer is funding it, and who's being paid by the taxpayer to do it, with what priorities.
I don't know that the OOI/IOOS network has been the entrenched political problem USAID was. But it's not illegitimate to, as the police would put it, stop, question, and frisk.
The policy PDF for OOI (April 2008) [Correction: the document is an environmental assessment report for OOI. But the executive summary and parts of the main document contain background essential to understanding how OOI fits in the nested oceanographic research programs described on pg. ES-1 (pg. 5)]:
https://t.co/77IOWXaemM
Screen caps with useful summaries. On Screen cap 4, see the drop-down menu under "What we do/Explore by topic" (right half of screen).
Searches on all the key terms will bring up the background info you may be interested in.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HKJtainacAAfjK_.jpg)
![OptimisticCon's tweet photo. For context, it's important to understand what is being cut here.
The National Science Foundation is a grant-making entity. It makes taxpayer-funded grants to recipients who then do the work of the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI). There's a PDF to study all the briefly summarized info here (bottom). Lines 10-21 on ES-1 (pg. 5) are your starting point.
The big OOI grant each year is to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, manager of the program. Woods Hole then makes grants, mainly to university programs in Oregon and Washington State. (Cf. Gov Inslee's former employment.)
OOI is an auxiliary effort to NOAA's Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), which spends its budget making grants and paying contractors to tend the IOOS apparatus. OOI has been in full operation (all arrays) since 2016. IOOS was launched in the 1990s as the US component of GOOS (below), and implemented in its current form ca. 2004.
See here (IOOS grant-making):
https://t.co/orKLpNTD4f
And here (IOOS history):
https://t.co/ebJRdHlZrP
OOI and IOOS are the US programs. They constitute the direct US contribution to the UN Global Ocean Observation System (GOOS) managed by UNESCO, launched in 1991. The impetus behind GOOS was what we now call climate change, with all its attendant programmatic concerns and associations.
The US contributes funds to GOOS through our general contributions to UNESCO, when we are in member status with UNESCO. When we're contributing, the US share of UNESCO funding is typically abut 22%.
GOOS is affiliated now with the international Group on Earth Observations (GEO), a body comprising more than 100 national governments established in 2002-2004, basically to funnel money to various entities involved in climate research and policy. See the screen cap on the focus of GEO (the 4th screen cap).
This is a network of programs intended to fund things. Its function is to move money around.
As with USAID, it's legitimate to inquire into what it's doing with the money, and interrupt this model of operations for one that may serve the needs of the Untied States better.
I'm a friend of oceanographic research. I also think it matters how the taxpayer is funding it, and who's being paid by the taxpayer to do it, with what priorities.
I don't know that the OOI/IOOS network has been the entrenched political problem USAID was. But it's not illegitimate to, as the police would put it, stop, question, and frisk.
The policy PDF for OOI (April 2008) [Correction: the document is an environmental assessment report for OOI. But the executive summary and parts of the main document contain background essential to understanding how OOI fits in the nested oceanographic research programs described on pg. ES-1 (pg. 5)]:
https://t.co/77IOWXaemM
Screen caps with useful summaries. On Screen cap 4, see the drop-down menu under "What we do/Explore by topic" (right half of screen).
Searches on all the key terms will bring up the background info you may be interested in.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HKJtReAa0AA8ud0.jpg)
Olivia
Online
Donnie Marchant
@DLMarch54
“Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.” Will Rogers
Oklahoma, USA
Joined June 2011
1.2K Following
825 Followers
17.7K Posts
For context, it's important to understand what is being cut here.
The National Science Foundation is a grant-making entity. It makes taxpayer-funded grants to recipients who then do the work of the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI). There's a PDF to study all the briefly summarized info here (bottom). Lines 10-21 on ES-1 (pg. 5) are your starting point.
The big OOI grant each year is to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, manager of the program. Woods Hole then makes grants, mainly to university programs in Oregon and Washington State. (Cf. Gov Inslee's former employment.)
OOI is an auxiliary effort to NOAA's Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), which spends its budget making grants and paying contractors to tend the IOOS apparatus. OOI has been in full operation (all arrays) since 2016. IOOS was launched in the 1990s as the US component of GOOS (below), and implemented in its current form ca. 2004.
See here (IOOS grant-making):
https://t.co/orKLpNTD4f
And here (IOOS history):
https://t.co/ebJRdHlZrP
OOI and IOOS are the US programs. They constitute the direct US contribution to the UN Global Ocean Observation System (GOOS) managed by UNESCO, launched in 1991. The impetus behind GOOS was what we now call climate change, with all its attendant programmatic concerns and associations.
The US contributes funds to GOOS through our general contributions to UNESCO, when we are in member status with UNESCO. When we're contributing, the US share of UNESCO funding is typically abut 22%.
GOOS is affiliated now with the international Group on Earth Observations (GEO), a body comprising more than 100 national governments established in 2002-2004, basically to funnel money to various entities involved in climate research and policy. See the screen cap on the focus of GEO (the 4th screen cap).
This is a network of programs intended to fund things. Its function is to move money around.
As with USAID, it's legitimate to inquire into what it's doing with the money, and interrupt this model of operations for one that may serve the needs of the Untied States better.
I'm a friend of oceanographic research. I also think it matters how the taxpayer is funding it, and who's being paid by the taxpayer to do it, with what priorities.
I don't know that the OOI/IOOS network has been the entrenched political problem USAID was. But it's not illegitimate to, as the police would put it, stop, question, and frisk.
The policy PDF for OOI (April 2008) [Correction: the document is an environmental assessment report for OOI. But the executive summary and parts of the main document contain background essential to understanding how OOI fits in the nested oceanographic research programs described on pg. ES-1 (pg. 5)]:
https://t.co/77IOWXaemM
Screen caps with useful summaries. On Screen cap 4, see the drop-down menu under "What we do/Explore by topic" (right half of screen).
Searches on all the key terms will bring up the background info you may be interested in.
![OptimisticCon's tweet photo. For context, it's important to understand what is being cut here.
The National Science Foundation is a grant-making entity. It makes taxpayer-funded grants to recipients who then do the work of the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI). There's a PDF to study all the briefly summarized info here (bottom). Lines 10-21 on ES-1 (pg. 5) are your starting point.
The big OOI grant each year is to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, manager of the program. Woods Hole then makes grants, mainly to university programs in Oregon and Washington State. (Cf. Gov Inslee's former employment.)
OOI is an auxiliary effort to NOAA's Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), which spends its budget making grants and paying contractors to tend the IOOS apparatus. OOI has been in full operation (all arrays) since 2016. IOOS was launched in the 1990s as the US component of GOOS (below), and implemented in its current form ca. 2004.
See here (IOOS grant-making):
https://t.co/orKLpNTD4f
And here (IOOS history):
https://t.co/ebJRdHlZrP
OOI and IOOS are the US programs. They constitute the direct US contribution to the UN Global Ocean Observation System (GOOS) managed by UNESCO, launched in 1991. The impetus behind GOOS was what we now call climate change, with all its attendant programmatic concerns and associations.
The US contributes funds to GOOS through our general contributions to UNESCO, when we are in member status with UNESCO. When we're contributing, the US share of UNESCO funding is typically abut 22%.
GOOS is affiliated now with the international Group on Earth Observations (GEO), a body comprising more than 100 national governments established in 2002-2004, basically to funnel money to various entities involved in climate research and policy. See the screen cap on the focus of GEO (the 4th screen cap).
This is a network of programs intended to fund things. Its function is to move money around.
As with USAID, it's legitimate to inquire into what it's doing with the money, and interrupt this model of operations for one that may serve the needs of the Untied States better.
I'm a friend of oceanographic research. I also think it matters how the taxpayer is funding it, and who's being paid by the taxpayer to do it, with what priorities.
I don't know that the OOI/IOOS network has been the entrenched political problem USAID was. But it's not illegitimate to, as the police would put it, stop, question, and frisk.
The policy PDF for OOI (April 2008) [Correction: the document is an environmental assessment report for OOI. But the executive summary and parts of the main document contain background essential to understanding how OOI fits in the nested oceanographic research programs described on pg. ES-1 (pg. 5)]:
https://t.co/77IOWXaemM
Screen caps with useful summaries. On Screen cap 4, see the drop-down menu under "What we do/Explore by topic" (right half of screen).
Searches on all the key terms will bring up the background info you may be interested in.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HKJtwytbAAAoSSO.jpg)
Beard Blather
Saturday, 11:00pm Eastern
"Step on the Gas!"
Details later.
@Umad80 @anthemofthelost It would actually be the smarter move for the Dumbs to Biden his butt, avoid the publicity of his crazy and let Collin’s continue to vote in their favor.
Dude other people in the Biden admin called you a moron.
A blind person can see what’s going on in California.
Kim Jong-on can’t even believe how corrupt California elections are.
Who to follow
Vilelance
@Vilelance
fighting fate since birth
NBR
@Birge12345
Conservative. Capitalist. Free Trader. Pro American. Pro Free Speech. Pro Responsible Gun Ownership. Big on individual responsibility. #MAGA #RedWave
Sherri Unfiltered™
@FFT1776
| America First Patriot | Truth over Tyranny | God, Guns, Freedom | No Compromise 🇺🇸 | FFT1776
@anthemofthelost Because it’s so freaking obvious what is transpiring. Newscum plays the pied piper of all things cretinous.
@Umad80 We owe Mitch for the save on the SCOTUS Merick Garland nomination under Obama, however, the damage he has done as a Never Trumper otherwise is unforgivable. He will be remembered for the damage not the save.
We the little people
Thom Tillis is such a little bitch. If he and one of the three bitches had done the right thing, it would’ve passed. Tillis and McConnell aren’t seeking re-election so nothing to lose. Murkowski isn’t up for another two years. No one is going to run against voter ID against Collins in November.
@Umad80 It’s a form of voter manipulation. There no other reason to have that system.
She knows she can do this because of Rank Choice Voting. We only need ONE Republican to run against her and then on to the general as the top two vote getters.
🚨 BREAKING NEWS: Four Senate Republicans just joined Democrats to block the SAVE America Act from advancing in the Senate.
Sens. Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Thom Tillis and Mitch McConnell broke with Republicans.
📷 @FoxNews
Interesting that all GOP primary candidates that expressed the Trump agenda, which therefore won his endorsement, were successful and won. The ones that followed the establishment GWB, Karl Rove, McConnell path lost. They should wake up and smell the coffee. We no longer except surrender in our politicians, the other side don't.
"Pelley spent his career using one of the most powerful platforms in American media not to challenge power, but to protect the left’s preferred narratives"
@AaronBlake If it’s baseless suspicion, why do I, a long time Virginia resident, have a live ballot for the California primary?
This despite repeatedly informing the state that I left (over ten years ago)?
Oh, look! The @WSJEditorials who fed false Russia Hoax talking points they got from rogue national intelligence players are upset that their sources are being routed for lying to America to overthrow a president.
Bummer. 🤣🙄🤡
https://t.co/ACWAs9U5PR
This douchebag @TerryMoran got fired, too, in 2025.
From what I hear, leftist Moran had the same entitled, elitist, narcissistic attitude as leftist Pelley and his ABC bosses could wait to can him.
Like Moran, Pelley will now spend most of his days in leftist pajamas.
I’m sure the massive, post-election vote dumps will boost leftist candidates. Taking days or weeks to count votes and announce the results is a joke.
Wrong.
The Giuliani bar trial was a travesty conducted by deeply biased partisans.
John Eastman will soon seek review in the Supreme Court.
And I didn’t try to get anyone to lie. I had a different opinion than others at DOJ, which is not unethical. Indeed, I had an ethics obligation to press my disagreement as high as it could go.
Blocked. Stop just reading MSM and watching its TV popularizers like MSNOW.
@paulkrugman When your side escalates their violence to the “purge” which you called for here, we will remember who ordered that violence.
👉 You. 👈
@shipwreckedcrew Old school baseball that would have emptied the dugouts.
@MichaelRCaputo @BradOnMessage I’m going with every establishment GOP prognostication has been wrong. Add the Hill picked it up and ran with it re-enforces the former.
Last Seen Users on Sotwe
AbouZeb21cm Xxl🇲🇦🍆🔥
Seen from Spain
Antonio Lopez
Seen from Turkey
sertsiken
Seen from Germany
En iyi içerikler Telegram’da!🔥
Seen from Germany
GODDESS GIRL 💁♀️
Seen from Australia
🇳🇴🇪🇺BigTitsLover🇳🇴🇪🇺
Seen from Turkey
النسر الكاسر
Seen from United Kingdom
🐆
Seen from United States
Indonesian AI Daddys
Seen from Indonesia
Orhan ve Jale
Seen from Turkey
Most Popular Users
Elon Musk
@elonmusk
240.2M followers
Barack Obama
@barackobama
119.3M followers
Donald J. Trump
@realdonaldtrump
111.6M followers
Cristiano Ronaldo
@cristiano
109M followers
Narendra Modi
@narendramodi
107M followers
Rihanna
@rihanna
97.3M followers
NASA
@nasa
92.1M followers
Justin Bieber
@justinbieber
90.6M followers
KATY PERRY
@katyperry
86.8M followers
Taylor Swift
@taylorswift13
80.6M followers
Lady Gaga
@ladygaga
72.2M followers
Kim Kardashian
@kimkardashian
69.4M followers
YouTube
@youtube
68.6M followers
Virat Kohli
@imvkohli
68.6M followers
Bill Gates
@billgates
63.4M followers
The Ellen Show
@theellenshow
62.5M followers
CNN
@cnn
61.9M followers
Neymar Jr
@neymarjr
61.1M followers
X
@x
60.9M followers
Selena Gomez
@selenagomez
59.9M followers