As it happens, the document only calls for eliminating one of NOAA's six major offices, and devolving some of NOAA's functions to the control of the states. That's not a bad idea at all. The states can, after all, share data and meet the same purposes NOAA does now.

The guidebook chapter detailing the strategy, which was recently spotlighted by E&E News, describes Noaa [sic] as a “colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry and, as such, is harmful to future US prosperity”. It was written by Thomas Gilman, a former Chrysler executive who during Trump’s presidency was chief financial officer for Noaa’s parent body, the commerce department.

This much is certain; it's not at all clear why the author of this portion of the plan being a former Chrysler executive is relevant, although his former position as CFO for the Commerce Department doubtless lends him some insight. Mr. Gilman probably has some great insight into how much of our money NOAA is spending--and what the agency is spending it on.

Here's the interesting bit:

Gilman writes that one of Noaa’s six main offices, the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, should be “disbanded” because it issues “theoretical” science and is “the source of much of Noaa’s climate alarmism”. Though he admits it serves “important public safety and business functions as well as academic functions”, Gilman says data from the National Hurricane Center must be “presented neutrally, without adjustments intended to support any one side in the climate debate”.

So, one of six main offices. Now, I'll differ with one point - all science is theoretical. That's how science works; you observe phenomena, form a hypothesis, test it, and if test data supports the hypothesis, you can develop a theory; theory, as the word is used in science, is different from how it is used otherwise. The scientific method is a tool, a process for looking at data and drawing conclusions. The word "theory" in science means:

(A) systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

Isaac Asimov once famously noted that most use of the word "theory" is taken as meaning "something you dreamed up after being drunk all weekend." That's not how it works in proper science.

But that's not germane. What is relevant is that, as usual, the left is overblowing the issue. One of six main offices is proposed for the chopping block, not the entire agency, and honestly, it's probably not going to happen.

See Related: New York Cancels Three Major Offshore Wind Projects, Joe Biden Hardest Hit 

Joe Biden Sucks Up to AOC and Slaps at Israel During Mind-Bending Earth Day Event

The interesting piece of all this? The Project 2025 people leave their best argument lying on the table.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Simply put, there is nothing in the Constitution that lists anything to do with climate or weather as an enumerated power of the federal government. This isn't an argument conservatives or libertarians should be applying just to NOAA, but to the entire federal Goliath. As a committed minarchist, given my druthers, I'd chop the federal government back farther than most right-of-center folks ever imagined. The size and scope of the federal government in 1800 seems about right to me. Washington should be running the military, dealing with other nations, managing relations with other nations, and guarding our national borders - and that's about all.

This is all just talk, likely. If there is anything that will survive the heat-death at the end of the universe and continue into eternity, it will be federal government agencies. But it won't hurt to toss a little scare into NOAA and get them to back off the fear-mongering--and focus on the weather, which makes this worth doing.