S-786 NWS bill
 

Received the following message from Senator Bill Nelson:

Keeping Hurricane Forecasts Free and Accessible
The National Weather Service (NWS) website got nine billion hits in the
six-week period last summer when Florida was repeatedly hit by
hurricanes. A
bill introduced into the Senate would prohibit federal meteorologists from
competing with companies who offer their own forecasts through paid
services
and ad-supported Web sites. If this bill becomes law, the NWS may have
to take
down websites like this one http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ that predicts tropical
storms.

I talked with some NWS forecasters just before Dennis struck. They told me
about a private forecasting company based in Pennsylvania that had been
tracking Dennis, too. But that company predicted Dennis would go into New
Orleans or Mississippi, whereas the NWS tracked that storm to the area
between
Pensacola and Ft. Walton Beach-exactly where it made landfall. If we
did not
have the NWS prediction available and had to rely on the other forecast,
the
people of the Gulf coast of Florida may have let down their guard, with
disastrous results.

The bill that threatens this service is slated to come before the Senate
Commerce Committee. I am a member of that committee, and I will continue my
battle to make sure this excellent government service--that can mean the
difference between life and death--is preserved.

Please do not reply to this message. For additional information about Sen.
Nelson, visit his website at http://billnelson.senate.gov
"billnelson.senate.gov

That sounds a lot better than the BS response I received from Saxby
Chambliss and non response from Johnny Isakson. But Nelson is a Democrat.
Santorum is the third most powerful senator on the Republican side and it
seems that all the Republican senators are following their leadership like
sheep. To scared to object to even the most idiotic proposal.

While it is probable that 786 will not make it into law by itself, look for
it to be snuck in as an amendment to some other unrelated bill.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

"krj" wrote in message
.. .
Received the following message from Senator Bill Nelson:

Keeping Hurricane Forecasts Free and Accessible
The National Weather Service (NWS) website got nine billion hits in the
six-week period last summer when Florida was repeatedly hit by hurricanes.
A
bill introduced into the Senate would prohibit federal meteorologists from
competing with companies who offer their own forecasts through paid
services
and ad-supported Web sites. If this bill becomes law, the NWS may have to
take
down websites like this one http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/ that predicts
tropical
storms.

I talked with some NWS forecasters just before Dennis struck. They told me
about a private forecasting company based in Pennsylvania that had been
tracking Dennis, too. But that company predicted Dennis would go into New
Orleans or Mississippi, whereas the NWS tracked that storm to the area
between
Pensacola and Ft. Walton Beach-exactly where it made landfall. If we did
not
have the NWS prediction available and had to rely on the other forecast,
the
people of the Gulf coast of Florida may have let down their guard, with
disastrous results.

The bill that threatens this service is slated to come before the Senate
Commerce Committee. I am a member of that committee, and I will continue
my
battle to make sure this excellent government service--that can mean the
difference between life and death--is preserved.

Please do not reply to this message. For additional information about Sen.
Nelson, visit his website at http://billnelson.senate.gov
"billnelson.senate.gov

Dave wrote:
This argument illustrates just how far the free lunch bunch will go in
exploiting the naivete of the unthinking.


You mean, the way people with actual facts who disagree with you, prove
you wrong, and so you have no recourse but to be condescending &
insulting in the hopes you might come out looking better?


Yes, the guvmint people got it right once and the other guys got it wrong.
But had it not been for the former policy of NOAA in not competing where
private industry is willing and able to provide a forecasting and analysis
service, there would be no alternative sources of analysis and forecasts.

You mean like the ones that got it wrong? What a great alternative,
especially considering that the taxpayers are already funding the right
answer and your side wants to deny the service to those who have paid
for it.


.... We
would indeed have had to rely on a single forecast-- the "official" one --
as the only available forecast.

Sort of like the way the Bush Administration uses gov't funds to pay for
fake news, and wishes heartily that this was our only source of info?

Sounds good, nyet?

DSK

Dave,

This argument illustrates just how far the free lunch bunch will go in
exploiting the naivete of the unthinking.

Give it up! Your statement is just abusive. First you call anyone who
disagress with your position "the free lunch bunch". Then you suggest that
anyone inclined to agree with them is naive and unthinking.

If you want anyone to respect your opinion, you've got to show respect
for the right of other people to have differing opinions. Otherwise you're
just trying to start an argument.

Don W.

Dave wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 08:36:03 -0400, krj said:


If we
did not
have the NWS prediction available and had to rely on the other forecast,
the
people of the Gulf coast of Florida may have let down their guard, with
disastrous results.


This argument illustrates just how far the free lunch bunch will go in
exploiting the naivete of the unthinking.

Yes, the guvmint people got it right once and the other guys got it wrong.
But had it not been for the former policy of NOAA in not competing where
private industry is willing and able to provide a forecasting and analysis
service, there would be no alternative sources of analysis and forecasts. We
would indeed have had to rely on a single forecast-- the "official" one --
as the only available forecast.

You mean like the ones that got it wrong?


Dave wrote:
Doug, if I had $5 for every time NOAA got the marine forecast wrong, I'd be
a wealthy man

I agree. But that has ZERO relevance to the issue at hand. In the case
you were discussing above, NOAA got it right and the commercial
forecasters got it wrong... in big way, with lives at stake.


... I'm sure even you recognize the fallacy of arguing from the
proposition that the private company erred once to the conclusion that the
private company gets it wrong more often than NOAA.

So, the private companies can use NOAA data which we paid for, to get
more accurate forecasts? Can you back that premise with any facts?



.... We
would indeed have had to rely on a single forecast-- the "official" one --
as the only available forecast.

Sort of like the way the Bush Administration uses gov't funds to pay for
fake news, and wishes heartily that this was our only source of info?


The odor of red herring is overwhelming me.


You can mask it with your sanctimonious air and atmosphere of condescension.

DSK

You sir are a nut case.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:45:56 -0400, DSK said:


Yes, the guvmint people got it right once and the other guys got it
wrong.
But had it not been for the former policy of NOAA in not competing where
private industry is willing and able to provide a forecasting and
analysis
service, there would be no alternative sources of analysis and
forecasts.

You mean like the ones that got it wrong?

Doug, if I had $5 for every time NOAA got the marine forecast wrong, I'd
be
a wealthy man. I'm sure even you recognize the fallacy of arguing from the
proposition that the private company erred once to the conclusion that the
private company gets it wrong more often than NOAA.



.... We
would indeed have had to rely on a single forecast-- the "official"
one --
as the only available forecast.

Sort of like the way the Bush Administration uses gov't funds to pay for
fake news, and wishes heartily that this was our only source of info?

The odor of red herring is overwhelming me.

In article ,
Don W wrote:
Dave,

This argument illustrates just how far the free lunch bunch will go in
exploiting the naivete of the unthinking.

Give it up! Your statement is just abusive. First you call anyone who
disagress with your position "the free lunch bunch". Then you suggest that
anyone inclined to agree with them is naive and unthinking.

If you want anyone to respect your opinion, you've got to show respect
for the right of other people to have differing opinions. Otherwise you're
just trying to start an argument.

Don W.

Davey (I mean DAVE) has been doing this for quite a while. It's kinda
entertaining to listen to him sometimes.

--
Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m)
http://www.sailnow.com
"If there's no wind, row."

Dave wrote:
My experience is that when one gets paid based on the quality of his
results, those results are likely to be better.

And all you need to do in order to have a horse that make a jump of
height X is to take one horse at a time, and shoot each one that cannot
make the jump.

So, you are making the claim that commercial weather broadcasters should
be allowed to sell us data that we have already paid for because their
forecasts are more accurate?

Don't bogart that joint, my friend.

DSK

Dave wrote:
heavy snippage _with_ prejudice

You sir, do not know McLuhan.
At all times, avoid oblique references that intimate some knowledge of
ideas beyond your ken.
Isn't it time you got your saggy little cheerleader butt back to
alt.republican.bush.worship?

In article , Dave
wrote:

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 08:36:03 -0400, krj said:

If we
did not
have the NWS prediction available and had to rely on the other forecast,
the
people of the Gulf coast of Florida may have let down their guard, with
disastrous results.

This argument illustrates just how far the free lunch bunch will go in
exploiting the naivete of the unthinking.

I agree with you completely, sir! Those fee for service people, who
take taxpayer funded data, value-add it and then onsell it to the
public, are definitely exploiting the unthinking. Especially when they
get it wrong!

If they were actually collecting the data themselves, using their own
funded satellites, met stations and the like, well, that'd be
different. But they're not. They sure are a free lunch bunch, hey,
Dave?

PDW