New Bill Would Ban Public NOAA Weather Data

I didn't really make an argument as to whether the goverment's actions in the case of my wife's company was right or wrong, I just stated the bare facts to see what people thought. I am somewhat ambivalent about it, and as I said this was only one business area and they have many.

I think if they simply made the data available to all there would be no arguing with that. I have a slight problem with them investing money to provide value-added services (sorting, searching, emailing, etc.) that a private company already provides. In addition, her company paid a lot of money to the government for the data, money that the government no longer receives.

So the government has eliminated a revenue stream and invested time and money and a private company has been driven out of a business, costing the country a few jobs and some tax money as well.

However as Core Shot said, the net result may be increased access to the data and more competition, so it may be a positive for the country as a whole.

This one seems to me a bit more nuanced than the NOAA data question.

By and large I am in favor of responsibly-sized government - inlcuding keeping the federal government out of people's lives.

Unfortuantely, much of the "privatization" push by the administration, neo-cons and/or corrupt government leaders has had the effect of actually increasing the cost to the taxpayer. A good example is the privatization of fire engines on wildfires. The government reduces "costs" by contracting out to private firms who provide the fire engines, thus reducing the investment, maintenance, etc. The cost, however, of the daily contracts is high enough that the fire engine owners need only work for 14 to 20 days per year to make a fat profit. Meanwhile, those fire engines are not guaranteed - the contractor can simply pull the fire engines out of serivce at any time.

The BPA scam was another, fortunately that was thwarted by members of congress from the PNW. Under that, the administration wanted to force BPA, a federal agency, to sell power to energy brokers, who would then sell it to the consumer co-ops that currently buy it directly from BPA.

The justification for these programs is a sham - it is truly about lining some corporate donors pocket.

I just wanted to say I think sea2ski has demonstrated that he is one of the most honest and humble people on the board.
Gotta respect that!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

I just wanted to say I think sea2ski has demonstrated that he is one of the most honest and humble people on the board.
Gotta respect that!

---

Agreed - When the lightbulb came on he gracefully acknowledged and shared his change of thought. Pure class sea2ski, repect earned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TomK

Agreed - When the lightbulb came on he gracefully acknowledged and shared his change of thought. Pure class sea2ski, repect earned.

---

ditto (123456)

Well you can thank Arty for helping me to see what everyone here was saying. I think I felt I had knowledge that some of you might not be aware of when it came to this subject. I also am limited as to what I can say about that info in a place like this without getting fired so some of what I said didn't include all the facts I know or go into detail.

I really hope that those details are what people are talking about in Congress and not how much is going to be donated to there next campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freshies

If/when these sites want to fund their own satelites, ships, etc to gather weather data, then let's talk. Until then, my tax dollars grant me the right to freely access this critical data....

---

and when Haliburton, Bechtel. etc. fund their own army, then let's talk about no-bid contracts. But once again it's the taxpayers who put up the money to steal Iraq's oil, and what benefit do we see?.... a shitty education system, and higher gas prices

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sea2ski

Your right, I don't fund the satellite, bouys etc. The taxpayer does. However, I guess my question to you is how this is different from a Wall Street Analyst who uses the raw data produced by the Labor Department to make informed investment decisions. They aren't paying for that information last time I checked.

---

I totally agree. Public access to information from the Labor Department must be banned immediately!

edit: Oh, I see me and my sarcasm are a little late to this thread so let me fourth this sentiment:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just wanted to say I think sea2ski has demonstrated that he is one of the most honest and humble people on the board.
Gotta respect that!

I thought I would chime in.
Telenator seemed to metion something I have been thinking.

If revenue or competition is the problem then the Accuweather and other should get out of the market if they can not compete with NWS. If money is an issue for the government, why doesn't NOAA do ads to make up for tax dollars.
If there is that much money is ads then NOAA could supplement tax dollars and then there would actually be a more level playing field. Everyone else makes money on hits why shouldn't NOAA.

Just a thought.

Here is some action YOU can take online from Mammoth's own "Howard the Weather Dweeb" - online petition link is at the bottom -

ATTENTION ALL DWEEBS!!!....PLEASE READ AND ACT "Weather Underground and mammothweather.com opposes the National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005" "Mammothweather supports the National Weather Services free offerings"

National Weather Service forecasts to be banned? 8:58 AM EDT on April 26, 2005 by: Jeff Masters

It may soon be illegal for the National Weather Service (NWS) to issue non-severe weather forecasts under the provisions of the National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005, Senate Bill S.786, introduced April 14 by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.

The bill's key provision (Section 2b) states that the National Weather Service cannot provide "a product or service...that is or could be provided by the private sector", with the exception of severe weather forecasts and warnings needed to protect life and property. Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez is given sole authority on how to interpret what NWS products and services should be restricted. In his comments upon introduction of the bill, Senator Santorum said the bill would boost the private weather industry by reducing unfair competition from the NWS and generate cost savings to the government, remarking, "The beauty of a highly competent private sector is that services that are not inherently involved in public safety and security can be carried out with little or no expenditure of taxpayer dollars."

Why The Weather Underground opposes the National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005

Poorer Forecasts It is unclear from the bill's language whether the NWS would be allowed to continue making its routine public and marine forecasts. This decision would be made by the Secretary of Commerce. I believe the expertise of the NWS forecasters is unmatched anywhere in the world, and throwing away their forecasts would be a shameful waste. Although the private weather industry can and does provide routine public and marine forecasts, the quality of these forecasts is sometimes poor and would likely worsen if the NWS ceased issuing forecasts. When I participated in forecasting contests both as a student and an instructor, I discovered that while it was difficult--but not impossible--to beat the NWS forecast, it was nearly impossible to beat the "consensus" forecast--that is, the average of everyone's forecast. Private weather industry forecasters do their own forecasting, but will usually check their forecast against what the NWS says before sending it out. If the NWS forecast differs considerably, there will frequently be an adjustment made towards the NWS forecast, resulting in a better "consensus" forecast. So, with the proposed legislation, not only would we lose the best forecasts available, but the forecasts from the private weather companies would also worsen. Many sectors of our economy depend upon good forecasts, and passage of the bill might result in a loss of millions of dollars to the economy.

Elimination of routine NWS forecasts would result in little cost savings to the government.The 24-hour staffing at NWS offices required to make severe weather forecasts would not change significantly, and these forecasters would need to be working all the time making forecasts in order to fulfill their duty to make severe weather forecasts. If the NWS has to keep their forecasting staff in place, why not continue to let them make their excellent forecasts? Ed Johnson, the weather service's director of strategic planning and policy remarked, "If someone claims that our core mission is just warning the public of hazardous conditions, that's really impossible unless we forecast the weather all the time. You don't just plug in your clock when you want to know what time it is."

Not all private industry would benefit*******

The Weather Underground, Inc.(and mammothweather.com) relies heavily on NWS forecasts and products that would likely be eliminated. Without these products, our company would likely be forced to significantly downsize. Other private weather companies are in the same situation, and smaller TV and radio stations that rely on free NWS forecasts would also suffer. And K-12 schools that rely on the ad-free weather.gov web site would be forced to eliminate some weather education offerings.

The bill primarily benefits those private weather companies with large staffs of forecasters that can make forecasts for the entire country, such as AccuWeather and the Weather Channel. Legislation like this has been pushed for many years by the Commercial Weather Services Association, led by AccuWeather, a company based in Pennsylvania. It is likely no coincidence that this legislation was introduced by Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa, who has received over $5000 in campaign contributions from AccuWeather's top two executives over the past 5 years.

Too much power is given to the Secretary of Commerce The decisions on which NWS services and products unfairly compete with private industry are given to one person, the Secretary of Commerce. Leaving one politically-appointed person in charge of this decision-making is unwise. A more fair solution would be to form a committee to make the decisions.

How to oppose The National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005 The National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005 is currently before the Senate Commerce Committee, and will have to make it out of there before the full Senate votes on it. The time to kill this bill is now! If you're interested, you can sign a petition opposing the National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005, or write your Senator if he or she is on the Senate Commerce Committee:

PLEASE HIGHLIGHT AND COPY THE LINKS BELOW, ONE AT A TIME....PASTE INTO YOUR WEB ADDRESS AND EXECUTE. THEN FILL OUT THE PETITION AND SEND; AS WELL AS SEND A LETTER YOUR SENATOR PERSON.

1. http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/SaveTheNWS/

2. http://commerce.senate.gov/about/membership.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sea2ski

Well you can thank Arty for helping me to see what everyone here was saying. I think I felt I had knowledge that some of you might not be aware of when it came to this subject. I also am limited as to what I can say about that info in a place like this without getting fired so some of what I said didn't include all the facts I know or go into detail.

I really hope that those details are what people are talking about in Congress and not how much is going to be donated to there next campaign.

---

Heres the deal from my perspective...
I use a COMBINATION of the NWS report, the local media, the Weather channel's reports, the local Avalanch center's report, and even the ski areas' fluffy "forcasts" when making my decisions on what to wear when out in the mountains. This bill would remove one of these sources of information. What's in it for anyone except those weather reporting companies who cannot seem to add value to the information the NWS provides?
Protectionism, pure and simple.

Hey Sea2Ski I heard they bombed your office today.

Yeah, it's not fun working till 9 at night then coming in for work the next day only to find that terrorists bombed your office at between 3AM and 4AM to make a point before the elections. The BBC reporter I talked with I think summed it up very well on the live feed I saw them do, when he said this is probably very similiar to what the Irish were doing in London a few years back. However, one man's terrorist is another man's day off from work.

Here's the NY Times link.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/ny...html?th&emc+th

Personally I think Accuweather might be involved :wink:

Got a reply from my Senator, Maria Cantwell.
A little more history/background than I expected. Interesting, but doesn;t change my stance.
For or Against? - the usual political wishywashy, but it seems that she's against it.


From the Office of Senator Cantwell

Thank you for contacting me to express your views on the National
Weather Services Duties Act (S. 786). I appreciate hearing from
you.

As you may know, the National Weather Service (NWS) falls
under the jurisdiction of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA). NOAA has specific mission
responsibilities for a wide range of environmental information
including weather and climate information, forecasts, and
warnings. In December of 2004, NOAA updated its policies
regarding how it provides its weather information to the public.
Under its new policy, NOAA will provide open and unrestricted
access to publicly funded information, at the lowest possible cost,
in forms easy for the public to access. These new policies repealed
a 1991 rule which contained specific provisions regarding non- competition and non-duplication with the private sector. The
agency would "give due consideration" to private-sector weather
companies as it looked at providing new services. As a result, the
guidelines for addressing potential competition between the NWS
and private weather service companies are no longer clear.

In response, Senator Santorum introduced the National Weather
Services Duties Act on April 14, 2005. If enacted, this broad
legislation would not allow NWS to provide a product or service
that can be provided by the private sector, unless the information is
necessary to protect "life and property," or the Secretary of
Commerce determines that the private sector is unwilling or unable
to provide such a product or service. For example, if the
legislation is strictly interpreted, there exists a potential that the
NWS would no longer be allowed to produce weather monitoring
products for use by general aviators.

Since its introduction, this legislation was referred to the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, of which I
am a member, where it currently awaits review. Please be assured
that should the Committee take up the bill in the future, I will keep
your concerns in mind.

bump.

I wrote to my congressman, republican gordon smith. Turns out he's on the science and commerce commitee. He, or a staffer, at least wrote back specifically regarding my issue and when they take the issue to commitee he'll address it. Also, it looks like this bill will go to commitee soon. (Within a week or two.)

I URGE YOU if you're from any of the states listed below, write to these slime bags. Or even call their offices. These are the commitee members who will ultimately decide if this bill should go to the floor. As an added bonus it looks like satan, I mean santorum is not on this commitee. So while he has clout. Our letters have more.

here's a website with email addresses.

http://www.congress.org/congressorg/home/

They need to know that you need noaa to still offer the services

Ted Stevens - Alaska
Hart 522 202-224-3004

John McCain - Arizona
Russell 241 202-224-2235

Conrad Burns - Montana
Dirksen 187 202-224-2644

Trent Lott - Mississippi
Russell 487 202-224-6253

Kay Bailey Hutchison - Texas
Russell 284 202-224-5922

Olympia Snowe - Maine
Russell 154 202-224-5344

Gordon Smith - Oregon
Russell 404 202-224-3753

John Ensign - Nevada
Russell 364 202-224-6244

George Allen - Virginia
Russel 204 202-224-4024

John Sununu - New Hampshire
Russell 111 202-224-2841

Jim DeMint - South Carolina
Hart 825 202-224-6121

David Vitter - Louisiana
Hart 825A 202-224-4623

Daniel K. Inouye - Hawaii
Hart 722 202-224-3934

John D. Rockefeller IV - West Virginia
Hart 531 202-224-6472

John F. Kerry - Massachussetts
Russell 304 202-224-2742

Byron L. Dorgan - North Dakota
Hart 322 202-224-2551

Barbara Boxer - California
Hart 112 202-224-3553

Bill Nelson - Florida
Hart 716 202-224-5274

Maria Cantwell - Washington
Hart 717 202-224-3441

Frank Lautenberg - New Jersey
Hart 324 202-224-3224

E. Benjamin Nelson - Nebraska
Hart 720 202-224-6551

Mark Pryor - Arkansas
Russell 217 202-224-2353

Done. Emailed all the senators from the Western States and NH for Tuck's.
Let's hope this bill never sees the floor.

edit: would this also mean that the weather stations at mountains from Alta to Baker become unavailable :mad:

bump.

Thanks squirrel. I could tell you were a stand up guy when I met you up at the top of the king.

Be real americans and make democracy work. Even in this small but significant instance.

Big surprise, Santorum received donations from one of the companies that would benefit from the legislation 2 days before the bill was introduced.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050527/...ntorum_s_storm

Anyone know what's going on with this bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by James Carvile

Anyone know what's going on with this bill.

---

Stuck in Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation :cool:
It has NO on-the-floor co-sponsors. :p
Nothing's happend since 4/21 when the commitee asked for hardcopy. :D

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquer...9:SN00786:@@@C

An alternative to the "Santorum Bill" is also making its rounds. The bill, H.R. 50 seems to be a better bill according to the people in my company who are more informed about the details. It apparently is more in line with the goals of the National Academy of Sciences report, "Fair Weather", which made recommendations for the NWS and was an effort to more rigidly define the roles for the public and private sectors. This bill is not likely to be acted on before the fall or winter so there is time to learn more about the details.

If the people lead the politicians will follow.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05253/569133.stm

Santorum criticizes Weather Service
Has sponsored bill to prevent government weather notices, to benefit private companies, including donor

Saturday, September 10, 2005
By Maeve Reston, Post-Gazette National Bureau

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rick Santorum, who has sponsored legislation to limit the information that the National Weather Service can provide to the public, told radio reporters this week that Congress should investigate whether the federal agency's initial warnings on the severity of Hurricane Katrina were adequate.

The Pennsylvania Republican's remarks drew fire from a union representing employees of the National Weather Service, which is a subsidiary of the U.S. Commerce Department's National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. They also were closely scrutinized by Democrats, who have contended that his legislation is intended to benefit private weather companies, at least one of which has contributed to his campaign.

During a conference call that Santorum conducted with Pennsylvania radio reporters Thursday, a public radio correspondent asked him about the weather service's performance in preparing Gulf Coast residents for Hurricane Katrina and whether the rescue and recovery response could have been improved if his legislation had been law.

Santorum said he didn't think the weather service had given "sufficient warning" initially about the hurricane's path or what its impact would be when it hit Florida. He said he was "not going to suggest there were any major errors," but that the adequacy of the warnings should to be investigated along with other aspects of how government agencies have dealt with Katrina.

"The expectation was that [the hurricane] was not going to hit Florida with much fury, and it ended up being a Category 1 hurricane and did a lot more damage than I think was ever anticipated," Santorum said in the recorded radio interview.

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., who heads the Senate Commerce Committee's Disaster Prediction and Prevention Subcommittee, yesterday praised the National Weather Service. "After reviewing the actions taken by the National Weather Service, I am convinced that this was one of the most accurate hurricane predictions we have ever seen," he said in a statement.

"As early as Friday night [Aug. 26], almost 60 hours before Katrina made landfall, the National Hurricane Center warned the region with reliable data showing the largest storm since Camille landing squarely between Louisiana and Mississippi. By Saturday night, over 30 hours before landfall, they issued a specific warning to the city of New Orleans, predicting storm surge flooding of up to 25 feet. These early and accurate forecasts saved countless lives along the Gulf Coast," DeMint said.

But Santorum stood his ground. "I continue to believe that we need a robust National Weather Service that is focused on its core mission and committed to getting it right," he said in a statement yesterday. "There are serious consequences for everyone when that is not the case, so I hope that, as we go forward to review the various aspects related to Hurricane Katrina, that we also look at whether the forecasts and warnings provided the necessary information to preserve lives and property."

Santorum's legislation, Senate Bill 786, would forbid the commerce secretary from allowing the weather service to offer a public product or service that could be provided by the private sector, except in the case of severe weather warnings, or if the private sector doesn't want to offer the service, or if the service is required under international aviation agreements.

Santorum has acknowledged that his legislation could help protect jobs at private weather firms -- including at least 14 in Pennsylvania, according to his staff -- but said its larger purpose was to make sure that the weather service focused on its key mission of warning citizens about the most severe weather.

Santorum has received at least $7,000 from employees of AccuWeather, based in State College, Pa., according to Federal Election Commission reports. AccuWeather provides weather data to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and post-gazette.com.

The senator's remarks Thursday, also circulated by a Democratic Party official, drew fire from the National Weather Service Employees Organization, whose Web site has urged members to oppose Santorum's legislation.

In a statement, union President Paul T. Greaves defended the performance of weather service employees and said Santorum was merely continuing his "misguided crusade" against the agency. Greaves said it was unfortunate that the senator "would try to use this tragedy to push his own agenda."

Earlier this week, Santorum was criticized by officials from the campaign of his likely 2006 Democratic opponent, state Treasurer Robert P. Casey Jr., for comments he had made about New Orleans residents who did not follow instructions to evacuate. In a WTAE-TV interview about Hurricane Katrina last weekend, Santorum said there "may be a need to look at tougher penalties" for those who fail to heed evacuation warnings.

Casey's campaign manager said the senator's comments showed "an incredible amount of insensitivity" toward poor people who were caught in the hurricane zone without transportation. Santorum later said his remark was not aimed at those without means to evacuate, as was the case with many low-income New Orleans residents.

please, do not let this douche be president

Core shot--much as I agree you might want to move your opinion to the padded room before people get all excited about the bill and don't notice that it dates to 2005.

Yes, I believe we should continue with the

FUCK YOU SANTORUM!!! Crap