Skyepony's WunderBlog

Thanks for Bill Update & Research. Let Us Know When You Need The Troops To Mobilize!

Thanks for setting up this blog Skyepony!

This is a great point for people to rally against this dangerous, "double-taxation", pro-crony, anti-people bill.

A few tips:
While I was living in Washington D.C. in 1997 doing research, I volunteered some of my time to the congressman from my former hometown (Ohio 17th District). I worked for free, as an intern, mostly answering phones and opening and sorting mail (although I also got to go to some committee meetings to take notes). Anyways, there was a definite "prioritization" for communicating with your congressman.

1) Phone calls can be very effective, but try to get to talk to an actual staff member, and not an intern. Ask, if you are not sure. Phone calls get serious consideration if you live in the district.

2) For letters, people living in the district get first priority, people in the same state "may" get some consideration, people from out-of-state usually got tossed in the trash (unless, of course, you want to contribute to a re-election fund).

3) "Customized letters" get more consideration than "form letters".

4 ) It helps if you are a member of an organized or identifiable constituency, say mariners, fisherman, aviators, etc. Then the power of your individual letter may be multiplied by 100 or 1000 (depending on the overall size of the group in the district) because it is assumed that many people believe as you and will vote as you do but will not bother to write.

5) In 1997 little weight was put on emails, unless you were from the district and had a very specific request. That may have changed somewhat, but I suspect some congressmen are still old-fashioned in this respect, while others have become more internet-savvy. Check out your congressman's web page and try to judge for yourself.

Remember, it is probably an intern reading and sorting the mail. My instructions were to forward specific requests from people in the District to a staff member for action.
It would help if you can show that this bill "will hurt my business", or will "put me and my family in danger" or "this will interfere with my right to fish" or "this bill is a danger to all boat-owners" or something similar.

Got to go now, I will bookmark this link and check back a little later.
Cheers!

Also note my little experience was with the House, and this is a Senate Bill, so big difference. Still, I think many of my statements above apply.

I really DO have to go, but since this bill is in committee and not on the floor, I see the first step as idenifting all of the committee members: namely members of:

(1) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate; and

(2) the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives.

If no one else get s to it first, I will do alittle research a list the committe members later today. It is easiest to kill a bill while it is still in committee.

Also, since the House committee on science is mentioned, I wonder if there is a campanion bill?

Note:
H.R.50
Title: To provide for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Ehlers, Vernon J. [MI-3] (introduced 1/4/2005) Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 5/19/2005 House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Subcommittee Hearings Held.

"Section 5. (e) Public-Private Partnerships- Not less than once every 5 years, the Secretary shall develop and submit to Congress a policy the defines processes for making decisions about the roles of the National Weather Service, the private sector, and the academic community in providing weather -related and climate-related products, technologies, and services . The first such policy shall be completed not less than 12 months after the date of enactment of this Act. At least 90 days before each submission of the policy to Congress, the Secretary shall publish the policy in the Federal Register for a public comment period of not less than 60 days."

This bill is a stealth hidden companion bill to the senate bill, if the senate bill is passed along with this bill, the House and Senate can get together in Committee behind closed doors and privitize weather information dissemination, possibly by adminstractive fiat, according to provision in Section 5 e quoted above.

This is dangerous. Along with opposing the Senate Bill, we must call on the congressman in the the follwing committees to delete section 5e)

COMMITTEE(S):

Committee/Subcommittee: Activity:
House Science Committee: Referral, Markup, In Committee
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards Referral, Markup, Reporting
House Resources Referral, In Committee
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Oceans Referral, Hearings

Hi all, This may help. Sen. Ted Stevens (AK)is Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation committee chairman; Daniel Inouye (HI)is vice chairman. I'll put in a link to website with all committee members names, phones and links to each Senator's website. Hope it works.Link

Keep us posted when we have to contact who to oppose this!
I'm already known in my State, ::G:: so when it crosses their desks... it'll be great to have a new topic to bother them

I would like to see our efforts led by skyepony to fight this bill remain independent, but at the same time I think it is important to find out who are allies are in this battle. First, I think that almost any organization or club that is dedicated to outdoor activities woould cooperate and join us in a coalition. This brings in boaters, aviators, skiers, hikers, mountaineers, bikers, motorcyclists, surfers, hunters, fisherman, campers, bird watchers.(have I missed any? please help me add to this list)..anyone who is either exposed to the elements and/or is dependent on accurate information and prediction of weather conditions to remain safe or enjoy their outdoor pursuits. There must be literally hundreds of organizations and clubs that represent these diverse groups. Identifying allies, and their respective points of contact, should be an important part of this effort, as we can help to moblize these groups to act in concert with us.

There are also important freedom of speech and freedom of information access issues here. It is almost as if NWS employees would be forced to treat weather data as classified information. One important lobbyist group in this area could be the ACLU, but they have not always been willing to tackle issues relating to the internet, as it is a murky area when it comes to free speech. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is much more active in this area, and they are aware of the issue and already have a form letter and links to Senators on their site, here is their link in opposition to this bill:

Link

Even though I think we should participate with other allied groups in all ways possible to fight the passage of this bill, personally I would like to see us retain independence in protecting our particular interests as weather enthusiasts,weather hobbyists and amatuer meteorologists. I would be interested in hearing other's thoughts on this point.

Perhaps our closest kin are those who run networks of home weather observation stations; I would not be surprised if many here are already in that category. So is there an organization, club or network for operators of home weather observers?

In summary, I think part of what we can be doing now is collecting links on this blog to our potential allies in this effort, whom we can contact at the appropriate time to solicit support. So I will be doing some research in this area in the coming days, and I think it would be helpful to discuss this potential strategy as a group on this blog. Am I going in a good direction with this?

I think when the time is right we should have collected points of contact for all of our potential allies, ready and at hand, to coordinate and launch a campaign against S 786 IS1S and H.R. 50 IH (Section 5 (e)).

The slashdot free software communty is also up in arms about this bill:

One of the better talking points:

Re:Contact the senator
(Score:5, Interesting)
by thogard (43403) Alter Relationship on Thursday April 21, @07:23PM (#12308424)
(http://web.abnormal.com/)
My comments:

I've heard about your bill to limit access to weather data.
please research what this has done in Australia and look to how many people have been killed already because of this type of plan. A good place to research is the "sydney to hobart race 1998." That was a boat race but the organizers running the race relied on private weather information since the government had just started privatized the Bureau of Meteorology. The result was that 6 people died, several boats sank and the coast guard spent over 10 million dollars on rescue of the 115 boats. The total bill for "user pays weather" was $700 million dollars."

General Link:
Link

This bill was introduced quite a while ago--last spring anyway by Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. I've been following it's progress (or lack of progress) since it was introduced. From all indications it's going to die in committe, there's been no action at all on it, there's very little support for it, and all the press it's gotten has been bad.

fwiw, Santorum represents the state (PA) that has the headquarters for accuweather, one of his big contributors.....

dottiebears - I would be interested in your opinion on that
provision 5(e) cited above in H.R. 50 IH. It would seem that
the bill in it's current form give a lot more power to the
Executive Branch of the Federal Government regarding
decisions on who releases what weather information and how it
is released. So how much of a danger do you think that
provision is to people like us (and people in general)?

Thx Skyepony, we're with you, keep us posted if u need names or emails or anything like that

I'm not involved with Meteorology at all, but my roommate is an Oceanography major at FSU. If I got her to help spread the news to Meteorology and Oceanography students, perhaps it will get some fire under their butts too. FSU students love some political action!

Hey Skyepony are you checking this blog regularly? Hope so.

I was the one you helped out last night with all the links. Thanks. (It's raining cats and dogs out here in sunny So Cal..just heard a flood warning for LA on the radio on the way home from work). Weird.

I was a bit scared last night, but now with Jeff's comments this afternoon about the loss of life expected for Honduras I'm REALLY scared. I talked to my boyfriend, Skip, today and he says there is nothing to worry about. His hotel is on high ground on the Island of Utila. (But Utila is right off the northeast coast of Honduras!!! And it's a tiny Island!!!). He says he will be busy working on the boat for a few days and probably won't be getting back to me for awhile. I'm going nuts. If your girlfriend were working on Utila this week what would you do? What if she kept insisting that everything would be fine.

Have you been studying the weather a long while. What do you think? Am I right to be terrified?

Thanks again. I feel a lot better. I'll quit bugging him and hope he has fun with it. And how the heck are you supposed to know the he's from the she's on these blog sites anyway. My bad.

On the privitization of weather information: If you want to get an idea of the firepower we are facing, you can pretty much pick and choose from this large list:

Link

There is a lot of money there, if they cannot ride to victory on Santorum's bill, rest assured they will try, try. try again, perhaps in one of those midnight voice votes where the politicians do not even have to go on record. We need to stay vigilant over the long term and keep an eye on the "rascals".

Suppose you were an idiot. Suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. - Suppose you were an idiot. Suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself. - Mark Twain

From somewhere on the web:
"Did You Know? AccuWeather is the only major commercial weather company that publicly provides a hurricane track forecast that can differ from the National Hurricane Center's. The Weather Channel and most non-AccuWeather television & radio stations, companies and newspapers use the government NHC forecast."

From: Link

MWatkins
Moderator-Analyst
Location: SE Florida

Posted: Tue Sep 27, 2005 3:43 pm
Accuweather Forecasts vs. NHC - Ophelia
"As folks may know, a lead forecaster for Accuweather who also does forecasting from time to time on FOX news started putting out quasi-verifable forecasts a few storms ago. For a period of 10 days, this forecaster made lat/long forecasts for Ophelia.

I say quasi verifiable...because while lat/long pairs were forecast...sometimes intensity was expressd in knots, sometimes in pressure (MB), sometimes both and sometimes neither.

So while there additional data points, they couldn't be used to verify intensity.

However...I did go back and collect this data, import it into a database, and run verification statistics for same-forecast period forecasts from the NHC...thereby comparing apples to apples.

Here are the 2 data sets...the NHC vs. A specific Accuweather forecaster tracks from the same initial time and same verufy time for all Ophelia forecasts from Accuweather from 9/6/2005 to 9/16/2005.

I will let the numbers...speak...for...themselves.

Code:

Model Name V Time Cases Avg Error
NHC official forecast 024 hours 10 cases 42.05 nm
NHC official forecast 048 hours 9 cases 81.99 nm
NHC official forecast 072 hours 8 cases 99.90 nm
NHC official forecast 096 hours 7 cases 153.97 nm
NHC official forecast 120 hours 6 cases 189.62 nm

Model
Accuwx 024 hours 10 cases 46.36 nm -10.26% skill vs NHC
Accuwx 048 hours 9 cases 106.22 nm -29.54% skill vs NHC
Accuwx 072 hours 8 cases 177.32 nm -77.50% skill vs NHC
Accuwx 096 hours 6 cases 266.20 nm -72.89% skill vs NHC
Accuwx 120 hours 5 cases 385.77 nm -103.44% skill vs NHC
[...]
There is of course...some margin for error here since I had to grab data from files that are less than clean. But the forecast error verification vs. best track should be good within a couple of nautical miles. "

OK, just a data point for one storm, I an curious if anyone has done any peer-reviewed scholarly work on the comparison between NHC vs. Accuweather, or NWS vs. Accuweather.

Sorry folks for the following long post, but this entry was already deleted from the web, and was retrievable only from the Google cache. I thought it was worth preserving, here.
Also, please ignore the partisian nature of the post. The issue at stake here is neither Democrat nor Republican, rather it is "We The People". This is an issue that affects people regardless of their political beliefs, and we have allies ranging across the politcal spectrum.

About The Only Branch of the Government That Got Katrina Right was This:
Federal Forecasters Got Hurricane Right

By JOHN PAIN, Associated Press Writer

Friday, September 16, 2005
(09-16) 12:42 PDT MIAMI, (AP) -- For all the criticism of the Bush administration's confused response to Hurricane Katrina, at least two federal agencies got it right: the National Weather Service and the National Hurricane Center.

They forecast the path of the storm and the potential for devastation with remarkable accuracy.

The performance by the two agencies calls into question claims by President Bush and others in his administration that Katrina was a catastrophe that no one envisioned.

For example, Bush told ABC on Sep. 1 that "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." In its storm warnings, the hurricane center never used the word "breached." But a day before Katrina came ashore Aug. 29, the agency warned in capital letters: "SOME LEVEES IN THE GREATER NEW ORLEANS AREA COULD BE OVERTOPPED."

National Hurricane Center Director Max Mayfield also gave daily pre-storm videoconference briefings to federal officials in Washington, warning them of a nightmare scenario of New Orleans' levees not holding, winds smashing windows in high-rise buildings and flooding wiping out large swaths of the Gulf Coast.

A photo on the White House Web site shows Bush in Crawford, Texas, watching Mayfield give a briefing on Aug. 28, a day before Katrina smashed ashore with 145-mph winds.

The National Weather Service office in Slidell, La., which covers the New Orleans area, put out its own warnings that day, saying, "MOST OF THE AREA WILL BE UNINHABITABLE FOR WEEKS ... PERHAPS LONGER" and predicting "HUMAN SUFFERING INCREDIBLE BY MODERN STANDARDS."

Mayfield and Paul Trotter, the meteorologist in charge of the Slidell office, both refused to criticize the federal response.

But Mayfield said: "The fact that we had a major hurricane forecast over or near New Orleans is reason for great concern. The local and state emergency management knew that as well as FEMA did."

And the risk to New Orleans in particular was well-recognized long before Katrina.

"The 33 years that I've been at the hurricane center we have always been saying — the directors before me and I have always said — that the greatest potential for the nightmare scenarios, in the Gulf of Mexico anyway, is that New Orleans and southeast Louisiana area," Mayfield said.

The hurricane center and the weather service have not been without critics. Some private meteorologists laud the accurate forecasts but wonder why those dire predictions were not issued earlier. They also argue that residents were bombarded with too much information from several sources.

As early as three days before Katrina pulverized the Gulf Coast, the hurricane center warned that New Orleans was in the Category 4 hurricane's path. Storm-track projections released to the public more than two days (56 hours) before Katrina came ashore were off by only about 15 miles — and only because the hurricane made a slight turn to the right before hitting land just to the east of New Orleans.

That is better than the average 48-hour error of about 160 miles and 24-hour error of about 85 miles.

Two days before the storm hit, the hurricane center predicted Katrina's strength at landfall; the agency was off the mark by only about 10 mph. That kind of accuracy is unusual, because forecasters find it particularly difficult to predict whether a storm will strengthen or weaken.

AccuWeather Inc. senior meteorologist Michael Steinberg said emergency managers and the public could have been given an earlier warning of Katrina's threat to New Orleans. He said the private company had issued forecasts nearly 12 hours earlier than the hurricane center warning that Katrina was aiming at the area.

He said that difference was significant because it would have given more daylight hours for evacuations.

Mayfield said hurricane watches and warnings are issued so as to give 36 and 24 hours' notice, respectively. Lengthening that time could mean larger areas than necessary would be evacuated, he said. That could cause larger traffic jams and put people in danger of being stuck on the road when the hurricane hit.

Trotter also wanted to make sure the public knew of the Category 4 hurricane's threat beforehand. His forecasters publicly warned that a hurricane of that magnitude could cause widespread destruction of buildings, hurl small cars into the air and cause the levee system to fail.

But Trotter went even further and called Katrina "A MOST POWERFUL HURRICANE WITH UNPRECEDENTED STRENGTH...RIVALING THE INTENSITY OF HURRICANE CAMILLE OF 1969." That storm wiped some towns off the map along the Gulf Coast and killed 256 people.

Mayfield also did something he rarely does before a hurricane hits: He personally called the governors of Mississippi and Louisiana and New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin two days ahead of time to warn them about the monstrous hurricane. Nagin has said he ordered an evacuation because Mayfield's call "scared the hell" out of him.

"I just wanted to be able to go to sleep that night knowing I had done everything I could," Mayfield said.

___


So Naturally A Republican wants To Do This. . .
Storm over weather service initiatives
Santorum bill would protect private forecast firms

Tuesday, April 26, 2005
By Maeve Reston, Post-Gazette National Bureau

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Rick Santorum has introduced legislation that would limit the information that the National Weather Service can provide to the public, in what the Pennsylvania Republican's aides describe as an effort to make sure that private weather companies -- particularly those in his home state -- can compete in the marketplace and retain jobs.

Santorum's legislation directs the U.S. secretary of commerce to limit the National Weather Service's offerings to just those services that private-sector weather companies cannot or are unwilling to offer -- unless the information is related to "severe weather forecasts and warnings designed for the protection of life and property" or information that the government must provide under international aviation accords.

Some have criticized the legislation as a giveaway primarily intended to help Pennsylvania-based AccuWeather, whose employees have contributed to Santorum's campaign fund. But a spokeswoman for the senator dismissed that assertion as being without merit.

Foes of the legislation view the bill as a major change to the role the National Weather Service plays, one that could drastically restrict free information for the public as well as airplane pilots and farmers, who are among some 6 million people who each day access weather service data on the Web pages of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA.

The legislation "could be read to say that it prohibits the National Weather Service from providing any services online that are available from private vendors," said Chris Dancy, director of media relations for the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. "The National Weather Service provides weather data online and through a number of other outlets that are vital to the safety of all flight. ... Everyone needs to at least start on the same page with the same basic information."

Staff members for Sen. Bill Nelson, a Democrat from hurricane-prone Florida, said they were already working to prevent Santorum's bill from even coming out of committee. Nelson spokesman Dan McLaughlin said that during four hurricanes last year, many Floridians depended on National Weather Service data for information that ranged beyond emergency warnings.

"The legislation appears to be aimed at restricting or closing off a free information service for consumers and, in turn, benefiting one or two big companies that sell weather forecasts and other information," McLaughlin said.

"For Pete's sake, no one suggests shutting down the post office because FedEx has a system of delivery," McLaughlin said. But private weather companies have argued that the legislation is necessary to protect their rights in the marketplace. One of the companies advocating for the bill is AccuWeather in State College, Pa., whose employees have contributed at least $5,500 to Santorum since 1999, according to Federal Election Commission reports. AccuWeather also provides weather data to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and post-gazette.com.

Individuals who identified themselves in FEC reports as AccuWeather employees also contributed at least $2,250 to Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter. A Specter aide yesterday said his staff was reviewing Santorum's legislation but had not yet taken a position about it.

Until December 2004, the National Weather Service -- which falls under the purview of NOAA, which is part of the Commerce Department -- has been guided by a series of agreements designed to make sure that the federal agency does not compete with private firms, which use National Weather Service data to provide their own specialized services.

But late last year, NOAA argued that the agency's most recent policy about competition -- known as the 1991 public-private partnership policy -- was too strict in delineating the roles of the weather service with regard to private companies. The agency then dropped that policy as "untenable" because "there may be good public-policy reasons" for the weather service to provide some services that the private sector could also offer.

The private companies saw that stance as a sign that the National Weather Service might endanger their businesses by expanding into new areas with competing products or offerings.

"What we see [the National Weather Service] doing is providing specialized information for business and industry, commercial users within society, products and services that the public, really, itself doesn't need," said AccuWeather Executive Vice President Barry Myers.

Providing generalized public information that parallels the private firms' services is "not the function of our government," Myers said, "and I don't think you'll find any other agency in the U.S. government that does that kind of thing."

The pre-2004 weather service policies on competition led to "the entire explosion of weather information in the United States and gives us probably the best weather available to the public anywhere in the world," Myers contended. He argued that Santorum's bill was a necessary measure to put back in place a firm anti-competition policy for the federal agency.

(Maeve Reston can be reached at 202-488-3479 or mreston@nationalpress.com.)

Which Of Course Has Nothing Whatsoever To Do With This. . .

Editorial: Santorum rains on free-market parade
In the good old days, Republicans used to want taxpayers to get more for their money. They also used to be in favor of capitalism and the free-market system. That was then. Now, meet U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa. The Pittsburgh-area lawmaker - known best for his stances against abortion and "man-on-dog" sex - is flexing his muscles and reaching for the stars. Specifically, he’s introduced legislation that would restrict the kind of information the National Weather Service would collect and how it can be disseminated. Santorum would forbid the weather service from providing certain kinds of weather information if it can be obtained from the private sector.

To put it simply, he would force people to buy a product from a business that they’ve already paid for through their tax dollars.

Now why would the Number Three Republican in the U.S. Senate bother with such a mundane matter? The way he tells it, it’s all about protecting Pennsylvania jobs - the jobs at 14 private weather-service companies in the state, including AccuWeather in State College.

They shouldn’t have to compete with the government, Santorum contends. And until a rule that restricted the activities of the federal weather service expired last year, they didn’t have to, either.

Santorum’s critics - and they are legion - see it another way. They point to the $5,800 AccuWeather’s employees have donated to Santorum’s campaign coffers since 1999 and wonder whether that has anything to do with his celestial concerns.

Some, including U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., say the measure could endanger those in the paths of hurricanes and other severe weather who may not be able to get the best and most complete forecasts available. Nelson spokesman Dan McLaughlin fears the precedent of shutting down government services just because the private sector also offers them.

He may have a point. Would guardians of public morality like Sen. Santorum put themselves out of a job because private religions already exist to divine God’s will?

More seriously, the U.S. Senate has no business censoring government agencies that exist to protect the lives and property of American citizens.If private businesses can’t compete, maybe they need to improve their services - or deservedly go out of business.

In any event, the taxpayers shouldn’t get soaked to protect the hides of a few of Rick Santorum’s best friends.

This is one proposal that is all wet.

posted by Living in Delaware County at 4/28/2005 10:23:00 AM
One Thing You Can Say For Little Ricky, He Always Repays His Debts.

Skyepony - Thank you again for creating this blog. I am doing a little research now and again, tonight I was looking through some posts for good talking points in our favor, and I ran across this post. The scenario this guy paints is very frightening:
Link
JosephB
Location: Arlington, TX
Posted: Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:29 pm
[..]

From S. 786:

Quote:
b) COMPETITION WITH PRIVATE SECTOR- The Secretary of Commerce shall not provide, or assist other entities in providing, a product or service (other than a product or service described in subsection (a)(1)) that is or could be provided by the private sector unless--

(1) the Secretary determines that the private sector is unwilling or unable to provide such product or service; or

(2) the United States Government is obligated to provide such product or service under international aviation agreements to provide meteorological services and exchange meteorological information.

Quote:
(2)(f) PRODUCT OR SERVICE DEFINED- In this section, the term `product or service' means a product, service, device, or system that provides, senses, or communicates meteorological, hydrological, climatic, solar, or oceanographic data, forecasts, or other similar information.


The definition (2)(f) clearly covers the "sensing" or
acquisition of weather data, as well as data dissemination
itself. If this bill passes, it could be argued that it
would be illegal for NWS to acquire and disseminate weather
data in areas where a private company is doing so. (a)(1)
does not require NWS to have the ability to acquire data, as
the NWS could still issue warnings based on data purchased
from a private provider.

For example, in my market, four TV stations have their own
Doppler radars; in fact some of them have two or three
different Doppler systems. It would be quite easy for these
TV stations to set up servers to disseminate their raw
Doppler data. The NWS NEXRAD data would clearly be in
competition with the private data, so the dissemination of
the NWS NEXRAD data would be in competition with the private
sector, and hence illegal under this bill. It could even be
argued, the way the bill is written, that it would be
illegal for NWS to operate NEXRAD, since NEXRAD is clearly a
system that "senses" data, and the private sector has
Doppler radar. Are we to assume that these privately owned
TV stations, who have a fiduciary responsibility to their
shareholders and patrons to make money, are going
disseminate their NEXRAD data to the general public for
free? I guess it's possible. This scenario can be extended
to much of the other data collected by NWS.


All the nice language in the bill regarding realtime
dissemination of NWS data ((c)(1) and (c)(2)) is meaningless
if NWS doesn't have data to disseminate. With no NWS data,
we'll have to buy data from private providers. As was
pointed out, it makes not ONE BIT of difference what Senator
Santorum says he intends the bill to do. The language of
the bill defines what the bill will do.

Let's be realistic here. Senator Santorum is not some
political novice who just fell off the haywagon. Given the
way (2)(b) and (2)(f) are written, it's really difficult for
me to come to any conclusion other than that this bill is
intended to open the door for privatization of the NWS.
AccuWeather has a web page

Link

defending S. 786. I find it very interesting that there is
not one sentence discussing the potential impact of (2)(b)
and (2)(f).

One other interesting tidbit from the same site, above.
"I find the "save money issue" laughable.
NWS budget: $617 million
US taxpayers: 138 million
$ per taxpayer: $4.47"

$4.47 per year from each taxpayer, which includes the cost of all the free information on the internet, plus providing "corporate welfare" in the form of information subsidies for all of the TV stations, radio stations, and private weather companies who also get the information for free.

Sounds like a good deal to me!

IMPORTANT NEWS: NOAA CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
Expires NOVEMBER 02, 2005.
LINK:Link

Background information:
NOAA calls for public comment on it's proposed "Policy on Partnerships in the Provision of Environmental Information":
LINK:Link

This policy wss developed under pressure from CWSA (Commercial Weather Service Association), the major lobbyist group for private sector weather "industry".

Instead of changing the law, they are attempting to eliminate services by administrative fiat, without singificant input of the public. This is being done in a very stealthy manner, I just found out about this today, and the deadline for public comment is November 2. I think we are on a very slippery slope. I also think it very important that we carefully review this administrative change and if necessary mount a massive campaign to provide comments to protect the public interest.

Here is a background article discussing the private sector weather lobbyist's hand in these changes:
Link

Here is the link to the private sector lobbyist group CWSA.
Believe me, they have no concern for the public interest, only for their clients: Link

Send Santorum to a sanitarium. Now.
HMM. Less than $5 per cap per year.
About the same
as a decent fast food meal at Wendy's.
Or a mixed drink.

about $600 million would build say 50-75 schools
zounds pretty good to me.
Priced Iraq lately?

hoochbear (on the hooch)

Santorum should be placed on the Dry Tortugas this morning with no NWS or NHC resources and a 1 day supply of batteries to listen to his beloved weather buddies toot their horn. After that let him ask Gilligan for help.

Oops, my mistake, about 295 million people,
$618 million, $2.10 per person.
On a serious note, one primary means of exposing
the Senator's bill and rallying troops is the Internet
and concerned people. When an bill adverse to hunting and
other outdoor interests came several years ago in Congress,
a network of sportsmen sent something like I believe 50,000 pieces of correspondence to the Chair of the Cong. Committe. The sheer volume of response was dozens of boxes of letters on that issue. Talk to Georgia Outdoor News in Madison GA area to find out how it was set up.

Maybe it would be appropriate at this time
to identify the corporate officers, staff, counsel and other hangers-on who would like
this piece of legislation passed.

But watch out, there may be some other piece of
legislation or other action hidden away somewhere
but working toward the same agenda.

If this bill scares you, just think of the
possible implications of what little information would be available to the public. Maybe sketchy but almost "free" forecasts would be "read" by lovely blondes, brunettes and redheads straight out of marketing class. And brought to you by your friendly Halliburton or SHAW Industries corporate offshoot, Or screamed by egotistical local or national on camera weather personalities in between car commercials.
Who knows, maybe the private sector will contract out
the cheap part to China?
I am much less worried about Big Brother than I am about
American corporate greed.
go to it skyepony!

Skyepony - I think it would be a good idea if we collected our repsonses here, so we could give each other ideas, while avoiding excessive duplication that might have the tone of a "form letter".

Here is the comment I sent:

I am writing to voice my strong opposition to the proposed
clarification in Section 4 of NOAA’s "Policy on Partnerships
in the Provision of Environmental Information”. In
particular, I object to the insertion of the phrase “NOAA
will take advantage of existing capabilities and services of
commercial and academic sectors to avoid duplication and
competition in areas not related to the NOAA mission.”

Duplication of capabilities and services in critical systems
is commonly used to protect against failure of the system.
In systems engineering the term “duplication” is also known
as “redundancy”. This policy change would lead us to
believe that "redundancy" is a bad thing, a waste of
resources. Yet, in critical systems, "redundancy" is
purposely built-in to avoid single points of failure. The
internet was designed to survive a nuclear war, and this was
accomplished by building in "redundancy". Large internet
websites have many "redundant" servers, so that if one
server fails, the site will still stay running. NASA builds
in "redundancy" in its critical systems to protect the
lives of astronauts. High performance computers take
advantage of "redundancy" to solve problems that could not
otherwise be solved. There are many examples of the
advantages of using "redundancy" in large, complex, and
adaptive systems.

The dissemination of weather information is an example of a
large, critical system. Lives depend on accurate and rapid
dissemination of weather information. Weather information
is spread in many ways, by radio and television, via the
internet, though daily newspapers, in face-to-face
conversation, over the telephone, by cellphone, and by other
evolving wireless media technologies. As in any large
critical system, which the public depends on for protection
of life and property, “duplication” is required to maximize
the rapid flow of information. Avoiding “duplication” does
not serve the public interest, and NOAA’s mission should be
solely to serve the public interest, even when the interest
of the public conflicts with the profit motive of private
sector entities.

Since my comment was already getting longish, I cut out this paragraph. Anyone, please feel free to use in part or whole:

In life-threatening situations, such as this very active and
destructive hurricane season, I have found that the
“redundancy” built into the current weather dissemination
system to be inadequate. Weather servers on the internet
were overloaded and often non-responsive. Television news
sensationalized reports, often presenting conflicting
information at a time of crisis. Cellphone and other
wireless services were overwhelmed with traffic to the point
of failure. Indeed, I would recommend that NOAA consider
increasing “duplication” to better serve the public in times
of great crisis.

Here's a link to the September 2005 editorial in BoatUS magazine about this issue.

im to tired to read and understand what this is about.
someone break it down in laymans terms for me, just a summary.\

Catchaser - They are trying to shut down the NOAA, NWS and other related government related sites (sea surface temperature, wave models,etc).

Just log onto this link and write a short paragraph about how you LIKE the NOAA, NWS, NHC and other internet sites, and how you depend on them to protect you and your property, etc.

Link for comment: Link

hoochbear - If we leave weather data sensing, collection and forecasting up to the private sector, the good, hard weather data will be expensive and available only to large corporations, such as oil companies, shipping interests, and airlines. I agree with you, all the public will get is watered-down "weather infotainment".

Maybe the can have a hurricane forecast "Crossfire" show pitting Joey B. against Jimmy C. ;-o

Another intersting article on Senator's Santorum's Bill,
S 786 IS1S: Link

Excerpts:
"Many station execs are unhappy about the bill. “[It’s] a very bad idea,” says Bryan Norcross, WFOR Miami director of meteorology. “There are things in our system that should be left to free enterprise, but weather information should not be completely left in private hands.”

The NWS isn’t wild about the bill either. “There will be great consequences if the National Hurricane Center is prohibited from providing information about a hurricane and its effects directly to the media,” says Richard Hirn, general counsel, National Weather Service Employees Organization. He says the days of TV interviews by stations and networks with NWS employees could end, due to concerns over lawsuits if an employee says something that isn’t public knowledge.

Contacted at his Washington office, Santorum did not comment.

Both sides concede that the bill, as it stands, is too rigid to pass. It is expected to be tweaked before resurfacing.

Whether or not Bill 786 becomes law, some believe it will at least get the NWS to better address its relationship with the private sector. In a report titled “Fair Weather: Effective Partnerships in Weather and Climate Services,” The Weather Channel (TWC) suggested putting a system in place to manage the boundaries between the NWS and commercial services, as opposed to establishing the strict controls that Santorum’s bill would mandate."

Note that the article states that the authors do not believe that the bill will pass, but it only needs "tweaked", i.e. it only needs some minor changes. This is not my view, the bill has major flaws, and should be left to die in committee.

Another interesting point is that "Many station execs are unhappy about the bill." Bryan Norcross, WFOR Miami director of meteorology, is mentioned in particular. It would be intersting to poll more AMS meteorologists employed by TV and Radio stations to see how many agree.

Finally there is mention of the report titled "Fair Weather: Effective Partnerships in Weather and Climate Services". This is a large report that needs to be reviewed to determine what weight is given to the public interest vs. the profit motive interst of commercial weather services.
The report can be read here:
Link

This is the link to the current NOAA " Policy on Partnerships in the Provision of Weather, Water, Climate and Related Environmental Information" as it now stands, minus the proposed changes forced by the commercial sector weather lobbyists.

Link

Tha language as it stands is fair, and I believe the proposed modifications are an unacceptable concession to the commercial interests of the private sector weather industry.

Some highlights of the document:
2...government information is a valuable national resource, and the economic benefits to society are maximized when government information is available in a timely and equitable manner to all.
[...]
7. NWS will promote the open and unrestricted exchange of weather, water, climate, and related environmental information worldwide, and seek to improve global opportunities for development of the partnership.
[...]
8. NWS's participation in the weather, water, and climate enterprise will be founded on the following principles:
[...]
Open information dissemination: NWS recognizes that open and unrestricted dissemination of high quality publicly funded information, as appropriate and within resource constraints, is good policy and is the law.
[...]

Sirs & Madames,
How can any information NOAA collects be determined to be "not related to the NOAA mission"? What would not be of benefit to the nation would be for NOAA to use our taxes to collect information, then give it only to selected private entities, who would then sell it back to the taxpaying public. With the proposed new wording, the policy would be contradicting itself. Be NOAA, or close the doors & give us a tax refund. Thank you for the opportunity to express an opinion in this matter.

Nice comment HIEXPRESS, very concise and to the point.

BTW, I found this webpage, "Ask Bryan Norcross":

Link

Bryan Norcross is the WFOR Miami director of meteorology. I
asked him about the issue of the NOAA policy "clarifications" that favor commercial weather corporations, and whether he would be willing to make a public statement on his opinion. I haven't got an answer yet, but maybe if
he got a few emails on the topic he will weigh in on our
side with his expert opinion. According to the article I
posted above, he has already gone on record as being against
the Santorum Bill.

hmmm, let's see now - we, as American taxpayers, are supposed to provide tsunami warning for countries other than our own 1000s of miles away but are expected to depend on privatized weather for our own needs...not a good use of my taxdollar & not why my dad was shot in the chest in WW II. What are these jokers thinking? I don't see the Congress or Senate giving up their tax breaks ( especially thoses opposed to them - leadership by example) or boosting national health care coverage to match their own (guarenteed for life for them & their stuff) after they leave office. What I do see is the continual eroding of educational services which we, as taxpayer, has funded & are entitled to. Hmmmph, make us all as ignorant & in the dark about EVERYTHING - then wonder why we're all too stupid to manage a nailgun, leafblower, flippin' a burger or looking out for ourselves in the least.