Hey Carl -

I'm afraid I share JC's short attention span - it took me a couple of tries to get through your posts. I'll try and state my centrist position a little more clearly this time.

The web site you're referring to (the big red x) is one of the extremes that make me cringe, just as much as the "news" issued by Accuweather. Extreme positions are divisive, and both sides are guilty of misrepresentation.

I like the Fair Weather report's conclusions - in short it put the ball in NOAA's court on how and when to make recommended changes. That's where I think the ball belongs - this is not something that requires legislation or the involvement of lobbyists. The report cites a need for cooperation between government (NOAA), academic (universities) and private entities (Accuweather), and I agree. I'm not sure why you're hammering that point as if it somehow proves my "position" is wrong... you are agreeing with me... right? NOAA took the first steps only a few months after the report was finalized. Why so much resistance from the private sector? NOAA did not employ lobbyists to push for legislative action that would force change - they simply started changing.

The accusation that NOAA and NWS somehow "withhold" critical information from the public is, again, misleading and a fear tactic that has become one of the mainstays of political extremism. The fact is, sometimes a model spits out something bizare - any real-time use of a flawed model would be much more dangerous than the brief period that is currently used to review and confirm data before it is released in a useable format. But dress this point as "NOAA is withholding and delaying release of critical data to select private sector end-users, and Senator Santorum's bill will do away with that, guaranteeing everyone, including the public-at-large, will have unrestricted real-time access..." Well, how can anyone be against that, right?

Sure - we enjoy a vast array of available information, 90% of which I would agree is packaged and presented by the private sector. But, Carl, you must know that that 90% number you're using has nothing to do with who is responsible for generating the data used by those private services we enjoy. In my case, I frequent the NOAA and NWS websites in addition to maintaining an annual subscription to a private service that repackages NWS forecasts in a format that I like. I pay for the repackaging through my subscription. I pay for the raw data through my taxes.

You make some points that are mildly offensive - for example, intimating that I harbor disdain for free enterprise, apparently because I'm affluent. This is a another example of one of the political extreme's current tactics, and is likely subconscious on your part, parroting, or intellectually viral (i.e., you involuntarily caught it from someone else). Let me be clear and you can pick this apart at your leisure - political involvement in science generally bothers me. Lobbyists, from the Sierra Club to the NRA, bother me. Political extremism bothers me - centrists and moderates are driven to one side or the other. In this issue, I get all three. Give me a smaller, better balanced government, special interests on the street instead of in the halls, and separation of church and state, and I'm happy... well, while you're at it, give me 10 knots and flat water with abundant sunshine.