Weather Controversy

[Pangloss]

This is an interesting science-and-politics story. It's not getting much reporting right now because there are much bigger stories out there, but it's worth considering and I thought our angle here on SFN my be particularly valuable.

 

The National Weather Service is in the process of upgrading its web site and otherwise expanding its services to the public. Streaming media and RSS/XML type data services and a big media push with a lot more appearances by their forecasters on TV, radio and in newspapers. Traditionally these guys have been pretty laid back (in fact there's an old joke about meteorologists who don't look good enough for local TV going to work for the NWS). But that's all changing.

 

Generally speaking this has been viewed as a good thing, because it means better reporting for emergency weather events. The local guys lack access to national resources and atmospheric and oceanographic science data -- stuff that NOAA and NWS have in spades (not to mention access to NASA resources). For the most part these expansions have focused on the data aspects of things, trying to make the information taxpayers have paid for more readily available to them. This really doesn't harm a local forecaster, so nobody saw a problem.

 

But apparently there is a competition issue with a number of companies that are very unhappy about the expansion of NWS. AccuWeather is primary amongst them, and apparntly some of the local weatherman types have gotten on board as well.

 

Pennsylvania apparently hosts a number of weather-oriented companies (companies that either make weather-related equipment for the commercial market, like dopplar radar) and AccuWeather. And so apparently Senator Rick Santorum has introduced a bill that would limit access to this information by the public. Bear in mind that this is information that we paid for with tax dollars.

 

Santorum says that emergency information would not be restricted, but it's very unclear exactly what would happen. Some critics say that the bill is so vague that it could result in the NWS web site itself being completely shut down. That's a site that, as Florida Senator Bill Nelson points out, received over nine billion hits during the four-strikes-on-Florida hurricane season last year.

 

My general inclination is that this is a bad bill. But I think Santorum and AccuWeather have a valid point -- the government should not compete with private industry using tax dollars. It's not fair.

 

So how can we resolve this thing? Any ideas?

 

Some additional background here:

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=773123&page=1

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/225022_wexed.asp

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1116590102250770.xml&coll=2

http://washingtontimes.com/business/20050517-093720-1956r.htm

[husmusen]

Generally speaking this has been viewed as a good thing, because it means better reporting for emergency weather events.

 

If by emergency weather events you mena things like hurricanes,

then my resonse would be.

 

Such emergencies have an overriding human interest factor

that outweighs private profit.

 

The basic principle is that emergency weather event forecasting,

is a public good that should be provided to the public, by the public, for

the public, using public dollars.

 

Now if the private firms can do it better and cheaper than the

government, the government is free to buy from them, if they can't

then they perhaps they should find something else to do.

 

Cheers.