ACCESS TO FEDERAL WEATHER INFO TO BE BANNED!!!?
[/color]

Get ready to kiss this goodbye ... IF Senator Richard Santorum,
(R-PA) has his way and his bill becomes law.

Santorum proposed and is trying to hammer through Senate Bill 786,
“National Weather Service Duties Act of 2005” with the goal
of ending your access to a tremendous quantity and variety of competently prepared, free Federal information forever.
TEXT OF THE BILL HERE


PROPOSED BILL WOULD CHANGE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE
USATODAY
"Proposed bill would change National Weather Service
WASHINGTON (AP) — Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) is pushing a bill that some fear would restrict what information the National Weather Service (NWS) provides to the public. The bill has drawn criticism from those who say it unfairly favors private weather providers, and would endanger the public by preventing the dissemination of certain weather data.

Under the proposed legislation, the NWS would be allowed to offer particular types of services only if the private sector does not offer them " CONTINUED HERE



WANT TO TRY TO PRESERVE YOUR RIGHT TO ACCESS FEDERAL WEATHER INFORMATION? SOME IDEAS FOLLOW ...

1. Sign online petitions.

PETITION #1, JUST CLICK HERE

PETITION #2, JUST CLICK HERE

2. Send letters to your State senators
(IT’S VIRTUALLY AUTOMATIC REQUIRING VERY LITTLE INPUT AND IS FAST!)
JUST CLICK HERE

NOTE: Email is fine but a real letter can be even more impacting. Why not print out the letters this application generates and not only mail them to your State senators but also to Senator Santorum? He needs to know that he has a lot more to worry about than a few special commercial interests.

3. Send a copy of your letters to Santorum at:

Senator Rick Santorum
511 Dirksen Senate Office Building?
Washington, DC 20510?
Main #: 202-224-6324
senator@santorum.senate.gov



*** I M P O R T A N T ***

If you know others that might be impacted by this bill, e.g. farmers, nurserymen, commercial and recreational pilots, commercial and recreational boaters, golfers, golf courses, fishing boats, baseball parks, skiers, homeowners and business owners, investors, developers, bankers and anyone else influenced by weather and forecasts, NOT JUST IN THE USA BUT WORLDWIDE (NOAA currently provides MANY valuable international weather resources), DO ALL OF US A FAVOR AND PASS THIS LINK ON.


If you have other ideas and suggestions, please let us know here. This is an important cause that effects important interests of millions of people. Make your views heard where they can do the most good.



For MORE INFORMATION visit:

CLICK FOR FULL SIZED IMAGES

CLICK FOR THUMBNAIL IMAGES

Thenks Ricki, It is amazing what greed and hunger for power do to people! I am an Independent, and have voted for both parties at different times. I always hear the current "Republicans" criticizing subsidies, and "Democrats" spending, yet here we have a "republican" senator trying to eliminate public access to a publicly funded source of information so that his buddies can make a buck by selling us the same info! How about he works out a contract to privatize weather information to the Feds, they pay less than it costs now, and we all get it free, just like now. I don't think that's what he has planned. Pretty outrageous!

People need basic weather info --available from numerous sources --and also need complete political info ,--also from numerous sources ,--not just one sides exagerated interpretation as applied only in Penn.
This type of targeting and exageration without reading in depth on the total aspects and political motives behind only lead people to make poor choises based on politically bias exageration .

Other parts of the USA today story -
When the rule changed, the NWS and its parent agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), expanded into areas already served by the commercial weather industry, according to Santorum's office.

The bill would protect the 14 private weather service companies in Pennsylvania — including AccuWeather in State College, Pa., Santorum spokeswoman Chrissy Shott said. AccuWeather, which says it employs about 340 people, provides weather data to a variety of outlets — including media organizations such as The Associated Press.

"This is about job retention in Pennsylvania," Shott said. The NWS would still issue severe weather information, she said.

end USA quote -
from NR on the political targeting of Rick Santorum -
a perspective from the other political party,s side
Reelect Rick
A defeat for Senator Santorum would have repercussions well beyond Pennsylvania.

If you believe the political Left, Rick Santorum is public enemy No. 1. And one of their top priorities between now and November 2006 will be to try to get Pennsylvania voters to agree with them.


Republican Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania's junior senator, usually gets coverage for supporting the federal marriage amendment and opposing abortion. Up for reelection next year, Santorum is the Democrat's top target for the midterm election. And, barring some dramatic change in campaign events, he's going to have a steep uphill battle. An April Quinnipiac poll had Santorum 14 points behind his likely Democratic opponent.

On their team, the Democrats are marketing a familiar face — or, at least, name. Robert Casey Jr. is son of the late Pennsylvania Democratic governor who was ostracized by his party for his vehement opposition to abortion: He wasn't allowed to speak at the 1992 Democratic convention. Instead, the Bill Clinton convention gave speaking slots to six abortion-supporting Republican women. Casey Sr. had a tough road and never backed down.

Casey Jr., Pennsylvania's state treasurer, is, like Santorum, a pro-life Catholic (he's also against gay marriage but doesn't want a constitutional debate over it). Casey Jr., the presumptive nominee for his party, is hoping that and his name carries him a lot further than it should. And it might. But that would be unfortunate. You see, they don't make Caseys like they used to.

When Casey has spoken about the abortion issue, he doesn't approach the Santorum record — though Democrats who worry about such things hope the "pro-life" descriptor neutralizes discussion.

A few feminist abortion groups have done a little grumbling about his position on their issue, but backed by the likes of leading Senate Democratic obstructionist Charlie Schumer of New York, Casey has made his loyalties clear. Rather than being a fresh voice, singing a "break the gridlock" kinda tone, Casey fits in lockstep with the current Democratic senatorial club.

President Bush's judge nominee Priscilla Owen waited for confirmation for over four years, largely over a parental-notification (barring minors from getting abortions without a parent's permission) ruling. Instead of being miffed at the unfair delay she was subject to (and others remain subject to), largely because of abortion and religion, Casey mimicked Democratic senators' talking points. He opposed changing the filibuster rule because it "forces bipartisanship."

But anyone who has been hearing the "nuclear" talk on Capitol Hill knows so-called forced bipartisanship doesn't cut it.

Meanwhile, pro-life Republicans would be foolish to embrace Casey if they actually want their agenda advanced across the board, and voters looking for an independent thinker should know that Santorum doesn't neatly fit the right-wing stereotype.

He's done a lot of notable work beyond abortion and gay marriage that doesn't get as much play in the media. He's been a leader in the effort to advance religious liberty throughout the world, heading a bipartisan congressional working group involving both House and Senate members. Recent focus has been on the plight of Sudanese refugees; Iraqi Christians' struggle as a minority; and the squelching of religion (and much else) in China and North Korea.

Believe it or not, in 2004, National Journal rated Santorum "slightly to the left of the GOP center." He's been a proponent of raising the minimum wage; he's reconsidering his support of the death penalty.

At the end of the day — even though his Santorum's style may not be your cup of tea, he's a good guy who has risen quickly to be a party leader (at 46, he ranks third among Senate Republicans).

And to be honest: I'm a card-carrying member of the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" and even I don't always agree with Santorum. National Review gave him plenty of grief during the last election cycle for supporting his colleague, Arlen Specter, a liberal Republican, in the Pennsylvania primary. I understand why Santorum did what he did — it was the collegial thing to do and there was a presidential race hanging in the balance, but I'm still a little miffed.

But it's another election now. And the Pennsylvania Senate race is the eye of the storm in 2006. "This race is about Republican control of the Senate, not so much for control in 2006, but for 2008 and beyond," says Cesar Conda, a former adviser to Dick Cheney. "The Left recognizes it — that's why MoveOn.org and other Democrat 527s will be pouring millions of dollars into Pennsylvania." A winning takedown strategy would make Santorum only the first of many.

The Pennsylvania race is about a lot more than Pennsylvania. Voters in every state would be wise to bear that in mind in the coming months as they watch the "Vast Left Wing Conspiracy" move into the Keystone state to take down the senator the media most loves to hate.
end article -

No link to the actual BILL was provided --instead a bias exagerated interpretation was offered with wildly exagerated claims of no weather service being provided which serves political purposes and targets the very gullable .

"The bill has drawn criticism from those who say it UNFAIRLY FAVORS private weather providers,".....A tax payer supported government agency being treated unfairly? How about the fact that the private weather providers and their employees pay taxes that support NOAA.

In all honesty, if I knew that my taxes would decrease by at least the same margin as it cost me to buy the same information from a private source, I'd be all for this legislation. However, given the recent trends in the GOP concerning fiscal and budgetary policy, the talk of "cutting the fat" will just result in re-appropriations to other sections of the budget, resulting in no net benefit for the taxpayers and screwing me out of free weather services.

Aren't all the private weather services free? We have never paid for any of the ones we use.

Yes - but how could they charge for it since all of NOAA's information is free to the public (and superior). It would be a safe bet that 5 minutes after NOAA's public forecasting information goes silent that we will have to pay for any detail beyond a basic forecast from any of the providers.

Well I'd pretty much guarantee that there would be riots in the streets if, all of a sudden, the weather channel was plucked from cable TV lineups. Likewise if the website wouldn't provide very basic forecasts for free. Now, some of the nifty tools that jake posted in the thread: http://www.catsailor.com/forums/sho...amp;Main=48208&Search=true#Post48303

Would not be free, for sure.

Carl, I have a lot of respect for you, and you present your points well, and honestly. Do you think these other services are going to keep giving the information away? There are already "Premium" weather services on some of the websites. If the jobs aren't viable now, you can bet we'll be paying for them if the bill passes. Clinton was no friend to American jobs, but the jobs that were lost due to his actions are nothing compared to what's going on now. At least up here in the Blue states. I waited my whole life to hear an American president say some of the thing ours did in reguards to foreign policy last January, but his domestic policy is clearly strictly for the wealthy. This sounds like more of that to me. If I'm wrong, I'd be happy to hear about it. Thanks, Brian

-- advertisements on radio TV and the web fund accu-weather and numerous other weather services -

The 527 DNC funded post, please note, uses numerous adjectives and is full of distortion AND VERY INCOMPLETE PARTIAL INFORMATION ,-there are currently 3 seperate BILLS concerning NWS originally founded in 1890 and periodically ,--like everything else in GOVT in need of modernization and updated definition to cordinate efforts in this age of instant communication .-
Santorums bill is the only one quarenteeing our rights in instant -real time access --not always available now --for instance --

this is from the ACCU-weather web site -
which has ads {gasp} but is a great weather service -one of many -please note the NWS -Coastguard reports --buoys readings -etc will be there along with all the other current weather service info --like satelite pictures from space over any area you wish -radar readings in real time -etc etc -http://wwwa.accuweather.com/promotion.asp?partner=accuweather&myadc=0&traveler=0&dir=aw&page=wxinfoaccess

Protecting Your Access to Weather Information
Background

The National Weather Service (NWS) was created by an Act of Congress in 1890. Congress has been working for a decade to develop a new NWS governing policy.

Three bills are now being considered by Congress to restructure the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which was created by Executive Order under President Nixon.

A bill drafted by NOAA and recently sent to Capitol Hill would create an Organic Act for NOAA and essentially dissolve the National Weather Service as a distinct agency and integrate it within NOAA, possibly as "NOAA's Weather Service," diluting its focus.

A second bill, H. R. 50, would also create an Organic Act for NOAA, and recognizes the National Weather Service as an agency within NOAA, but without a well-defined mission.

The third bill, S. B. 786, introduced by Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania, would recognize and continue the National Weather Service as a distinct agency, revising and modernizing its 1890 Organic Act.

S. B. 786 Guarantees Unfettered Public Access

Of the three pieces of legislation now before Congress, S. B. 786 is the only bill that would guarantee unfettered public access to "all data, guidance, forecasts, and warnings received, collected, created, or prepared by NOAA or NWS." (Sec.2.(c)(1))

Additionally, it would continue the current methods of distribution of this information (1) through data portals for large volume users and (2) to the public using the methods as determined by the Commerce Department under existing federal law, including the Internet, as is now the case. (Sec.2.(c)(2))

Opponents of the bill have asserted that the under the bill, control of government data and information would be shifted to the Commercial Weather Industry and that citizens would have to pay twice for the data and information. This is false.

In fact, S. B. 786 is the only bill before Congress that specifically requires the data be released to the public in real time.

Without S. B. 786, no one can point to a specific requirement in federal law that weather information be released to the public in real time. Nothing prevents the NWS or NOAA (if NWS is absorbed into NOAA) from bottling up the information, as it has done on various occasions, releasing some information and failing or refusing to release other information.

S. B. 786 Reestablishes NWS's Previously Existing Non-Compete Policy

S. B. 786 reestablishes the NWS's own non-competition policy, which NWS has had in effect, in one form or another, for over 55 years. (Sec.2.(b))

That policy, repealed by NOAA in December 2004, has been the underlying support for the growth in the Commercial Weather Industry in the United States. That policy has led to free and widely available weather products and services for the public through all forms of media, including cable weather channels, television weather presenters, newspaper weather pages, radio weather personalities, and an explosion of private sector weather and portal web sites. It is estimated that 85 to 95 percent of the weather information reaching the public comes from the Commercial Weather Industry.

That policy is also what has led to the development of specialized weather services at reasonable prices tailored to the needs of business, industry, agriculture, transportation, emergency management, government and many other applications. These services have greatly enhanced the efficiency of weather-affected operations nationwide. It is estimated by the government that almost a third of the economy is affected by weather and the Commercial Weather Industry is the primary source relied on for weather information within that part of the economy.

In November 2004, the House and Senate, with bipartisan support, jointly adopted a position similar to S. B. 786 in regard to non-competition in the provision of weather services. (Conference Report to H.R. 4818) S. B. 786 is also in line with the new national policy on space transportation which states that the government must "refrain from conducting activities with commercial applications that preclude, deter, or compete with U.S. commercial space transport activities..."

The Bill Requires NWS Information to be Fully Available to the Public

Some have attacked S. B. 786 with the argument that it would place control of federally collected data within the hands of the private sector and cause American citizens to have to pay twice for data, information and forecasts that the government collects and generates. This is false. The bill, for the first time in history, would legislatively require all NOAA/NWS information produced to be fully available to the public directly from the agency. (Sec.2.(c)(1))

In fact, S. B. 786 is the only bill pending that requires NOAA/NWS information to be "issued in real time, without delay, in a manner that ensures that all members of the public have opportunity for simultaneous and equal access." (Sec.2.(c)(1))

No such requirement currently exists and NOAA/NWS currently can, and sometimes does, delay and withhold information from the public and the Commercial Weather Industry, including the media. Among the information sometimes withheld are real-time snowfall accumulation reports, cooperative observer reports, hurricane reconnaissance reports, and other critical information. Withholding such information can endanger lives and property.

The Bill Provides for the Widest Possible Distribution of Information

Some have said S. B. 786 would prohibit information being made available on the Internet by government. This is false. The bill envisions the widest possible distribution and has no restriction relating to the Internet.

The Bill Causes the NWS to Focus on Its Core Mission of Saving Lives and Property

S. B. 786 requires the National Weather Service to focus on a core mission, including protection of the public through a mandated requirement of providing severe weather forecasts and warnings for the protection of life and property. (Sec.2.(a)(1))

The Bill Brings the NWS in Line with Federal Requirements for Other Agencies

Lastly, S. B. 786 brings NOAA/NWS into line with the rules that apply to other federal agencies, by requiring uniform release to the nation of "any weather data, information, guidance, forecast or warning that might influence or affect the market value of any product, service, commodity, tradable, or business...," and at the same time prohibiting individual government employees from providing specialized personal or "insider" agency information to some citizens and not to others. (Sec.2.(d))

This would, for example, prohibit NWS employees from providing information, except through full, timely public release, which might influence money and market transactions. Such employees are already prohibited from investing in weather futures by Commerce Department letter policy, because of these concerns.

The interests of the public and the Commercial Weather Industry are aligned on all of these issues.

Click here to read a press release from the Commercial Weather Services Association

end article
I also respect each person posting --please read both sides of issues --and please see through current attempts at gross political distortion --much of which has occured in mainstream media -
good article here on the subject by one of my favorite authors ---VDH --http://www.victorhanson.com/

When ever anything appears with a political targeting agenda -please question it ,-and the peoples motives behind it -- --quote -"It is amazing what greed and hunger for power do to people!" -
as per -People seeking the money and power of political office
Protecting Your Access to Weather Information

Background

The National Weather Service (NWS) was created by an Act of Congress in 1890. Congress has been working for a decade to develop a new NWS governing policy.

Three bills are now being considered by Congress to restructure the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which was created by Executive Order under President Nixon.

A bill drafted by NOAA and recently sent to Capitol Hill would create an Organic Act for NOAA and essentially dissolve the National Weather Service as a distinct agency and integrate it within NOAA, possibly as "NOAA's Weather Service," diluting its focus.

A second bill, H. R. 50, would also create an Organic Act for NOAA, and recognizes the National Weather Service as an agency within NOAA, but without a well-defined mission.

The third bill, S. B. 786, introduced by Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania, would recognize and continue the National Weather Service as a distinct agency, revising and modernizing its 1890 Organic Act.

S. B. 786 Guarantees Unfettered Public Access

Of the three pieces of legislation now before Congress, S. B. 786 is the only bill that would guarantee unfettered public access to "all data, guidance, forecasts, and warnings received, collected, created, or prepared by NOAA or NWS." (Sec.2.(c)(1))

Additionally, it would continue the current methods of distribution of this information (1) through data portals for large volume users and (2) to the public using the methods as determined by the Commerce Department under existing federal law, including the Internet, as is now the case. (Sec.2.(c)(2))

Opponents of the bill have asserted that the under the bill, control of government data and information would be shifted to the Commercial Weather Industry and that citizens would have to pay twice for the data and information. This is false.

In fact, S. B. 786 is the only bill before Congress that specifically requires the data be released to the public in real time.

Without S. B. 786, no one can point to a specific requirement in federal law that weather information be released to the public in real time. Nothing prevents the NWS or NOAA (if NWS is absorbed into NOAA) from bottling up the information, as it has done on various occasions, releasing some information and failing or refusing to release other information.

S. B. 786 Reestablishes NWS's Previously Existing Non-Compete Policy

S. B. 786 reestablishes the NWS's own non-competition policy, which NWS has had in effect, in one form or another, for over 55 years. (Sec.2.(b))

That policy, repealed by NOAA in December 2004, has been the underlying support for the growth in the Commercial Weather Industry in the United States. That policy has led to free and widely available weather products and services for the public through all forms of media, including cable weather channels, television weather presenters, newspaper weather pages, radio weather personalities, and an explosion of private sector weather and portal web sites. It is estimated that 85 to 95 percent of the weather information reaching the public comes from the Commercial Weather Industry.

That policy is also what has led to the development of specialized weather services at reasonable prices tailored to the needs of business, industry, agriculture, transportation, emergency management, government and many other applications. These services have greatly enhanced the efficiency of weather-affected operations nationwide. It is estimated by the government that almost a third of the economy is affected by weather and the Commercial Weather Industry is the primary source relied on for weather information within that part of the economy.

In November 2004, the House and Senate, with bipartisan support, jointly adopted a position similar to S. B. 786 in regard to non-competition in the provision of weather services. (Conference Report to H.R. 4818) S. B. 786 is also in line with the new national policy on space transportation which states that the government must "refrain from conducting activities with commercial applications that preclude, deter, or compete with U.S. commercial space transport activities..."

The Bill Requires NWS Information to be Fully Available to the Public

Some have attacked S. B. 786 with the argument that it would place control of federally collected data within the hands of the private sector and cause American citizens to have to pay twice for data, information and forecasts that the government collects and generates. This is false. The bill, for the first time in history, would legislatively require all NOAA/NWS information produced to be fully available to the public directly from the agency. (Sec.2.(c)(1))

In fact, S. B. 786 is the only bill pending that requires NOAA/NWS information to be "issued in real time, without delay, in a manner that ensures that all members of the public have opportunity for simultaneous and equal access." (Sec.2.(c)(1))

No such requirement currently exists and NOAA/NWS currently can, and sometimes does, delay and withhold information from the public and the Commercial Weather Industry, including the media. Among the information sometimes withheld are real-time snowfall accumulation reports, cooperative observer reports, hurricane reconnaissance reports, and other critical information. Withholding such information can endanger lives and property.

The Bill Provides for the Widest Possible Distribution of Information

Some have said S. B. 786 would prohibit information being made available on the Internet by government. This is false. The bill envisions the widest possible distribution and has no restriction relating to the Internet.

The Bill Causes the NWS to Focus on Its Core Mission of Saving Lives and Property

S. B. 786 requires the National Weather Service to focus on a core mission, including protection of the public through a mandated requirement of providing severe weather forecasts and warnings for the protection of life and property. (Sec.2.(a)(1))

The Bill Brings the NWS in Line with Federal Requirements for Other Agencies

Lastly, S. B. 786 brings NOAA/NWS into line with the rules that apply to other federal agencies, by requiring uniform release to the nation of "any weather data, information, guidance, forecast or warning that might influence or affect the market value of any product, service, commodity, tradable, or business...," and at the same time prohibiting individual government employees from providing specialized personal or "insider" agency information to some citizens and not to others. (Sec.2.(d))

This would, for example, prohibit NWS employees from providing information, except through full, timely public release, which might influence money and market transactions. Such employees are already prohibited from investing in weather futures by Commerce Department letter policy, because of these concerns.

The interests of the public and the Commercial Weather Industry are aligned on all of these issues.

The interesting things on this are:

1) The requirement for the NWS to keep providing all the services it does.

2) The requirement that everybody has access at the same time to the products

3) The requirement that the NWS cannot compete with companies that can provide any of the same services.

These are the basic things in the bill.

Analysis I've read of this points to #2 as a fairness to the various businesses involved in weather reporting - it means that the NWS cannot favor one company over another in distributing its products. For companies that might make a buck redistributing the data, if one were to get it before another it would have an unfair advantage in the market place, and the NWS could play favorites. #2 is an attempt to fix that.

It would seem that #2 is the part that guarantees continued access for the public to the data, given that #1 requires the NWS to keep providing data. Except that #3 would constrain the NWS from freely distributing the products to the public if there are companies that do that for profit. And that is the area that has people somewhat alarmed.

This last point has been one of the complaints of the for-profit weather companies, is that the forecasts and observations are getting easier to get for free from the gov't, amounting to unfair competition. And they have apparently lobbied and made contributions to change this - which is fair enough, that's one way business is done.

So, within the framework that could be set by this bill, it's easy to see the situation where our tax money continues to fund the gov't weather services, but due to the non-compete aspect the data and predictions and such are not available freely to the public, but are available freely to the for-profit weather companies. The companies then could distribute the products to the public in a for-profit way, either funded by commercials or by a subscription. In this scenario you pay for it twice - first with your taxes and then by subscriptions or dealing with ads.

Most analysis of this issue notes that it is planned that the NWS would still issue alerts and warnings to the general public - which only really means that no for-profit company wishes to take on that liability and compete in those service areas. And it would be a liability - get one hurricane landfall warning wrong and the lawsuits start pouring in.

I don't believe the above scenario is outlandish, and furthermore that scenario above amounts to free raw materials for the for-profit weather forecasters in addition to a guarantee of non-competition from the gov't. From my point of view, if they truly want no-compete from the gov't, maybe they should pony up the resources to do the whole thing - build the observation stations, radars, fund the planes and weather balloons. Then we can save a bunch on taxes and can buy their services if we want to. We'll see if that's a business model they can make work.

Whether or not you think Santorum is the second coming or the devil incarnate should be immaterial. Consider what's possible under the wording of the bill and act with your conscience.

No compete clauses for the gov't. are an interesting thing, and you could see a lot of cases where it would be good, and perhaps bad. The one thing to remember is that ultimately, a company's duty is to its shareholders - be they public or private. That's the harsh reality of business...

quote
-Whether or not you think {any senator} is the second coming or the devil incarnate should be immaterial.

That is precisely the problem with the disinformation web site with large red Xs and the senators name in red across weather maps etc etc, clearly its intent to target a senator with attempt of insighting sailing groups and others based on false and partial information ,Also then asking for petition signing and letters based on the falsifications as THEY supply .---clearly the funded web sites intent--politically targeted disinformation.
Being misinformed to this extent should disturb sailors and others who responded under false pretense and false information as supplied .

What does this indicate about those who contrived it --their judgement -lack of principles, and the politicians alligned with them .

Their solutions --as no other acceptable bills are proposed ,--seem to be to misinform --villify others based on falsifications ,-- and attempts at cheap manipulation of sailing groups and others based on web disinformation .

All that having been said, based on the content of the bill, I'd say there is reason to be worried if it passes.

Remember that a viable alternative is to pass no new bill regarding it. So if no other bill has been proposed, it does not mean that this one should pass just because it is the only one to address the issue.

Hi Keith

There are 3 bills ,--do any wonder why the other 2 bills and their authors were not the subject of A political web site with red lettering of their names with large Xs across weather maps and all the political disinformation? Why the false political targeting ,-what are the motives of such people ?
Isn,t the unethical behavior and attempt to dupe sailors for political purpose on an issue of importance cause for investigation of the people responcible and should not there be repercussions for their falsification and disinformation ?.

Sighting reason real or imaginary to worry if a bill is passed does not dismiss the disinformation perpetrated on the sailing public .

-There are numerous reasons to enact Senate bill 786
http://www.wunderground.com/education/santorum_comments.asp


The potential for huge waste and duplication of services already provided at no taxpayer cost by existing weather service sectors --and the selling or profitting from govt information are among numerous reasons why the bill should be enacted now and all weather info made available in real time to all .
Please read http://wwwa.accuweather.com/promoti...mp;traveler=0&dir=aw&page=cwsapr

Profitting of individuals in govt by providing selected information or only making it available to some and not others is unethical ---and reason for acting on the bill. The alternative as suggested of not doing anything seems negligent at best.

note:-the disinformation web never linked to the bill though stated link to bill -it just lead to more of the same misinformation.

Repercussions directed at the web should include the reputiation of false desemination of information and the distain of such acts,-particularly on non political general recreational forums ,- and those that emulate and duplicate the pathologies of political disinformation on the public.

The lack of principles involved in this type of politically motivated enterprize and general adjenda of falsification is disturbing ,-as are the politicians involved or those who will attempt to profit politically from it .

Real honest inteligent diologue is needed with factual complete information in able to grasp all aspects of problems we face as a nation and world to enable us to solve the numerous problems we and future generations face .

We do have the best weather information system in the world readily available to us -90% of which is through existing private sector sources in place for several decades ,always improving with doplar radar and other expensive technical updates to systems and vast commication networks.
http://wwwa.accuweather.com/index-radar.asp?partner=accuweather&myadc=0&traveler=0

Carl, Thanks! I regret that I signed the petition. As you said there is a great deal of disinformation out there, including in all the major networks, and medias (ie... the missing "w" keyes on whitehouse keyboards when the president's staff took over the White House. That was made up by someone in the staff, but wasn't ever confirmed, and when a reporter did follow it up, there was nothing to it!) It is a sad state of affairs we face. Unfortunately it is accepted as the "norm", and not merely tolerated, but promoted in our culture as the way to win. Who cares about truth? I'm glad to hear there is a right winger that does! If only you could bring the party back to being Lincoln's party...

Me Too...I feel duped. While I don't have the time to fully understand what exactly this bill is asking for, it's pretty clear that there is a lot of over-exaggerated inflamatory bits of information flying around out there. T'aint the internet lovely?

Hey guys -

As usual, I find myself standing somewhere in the middle on an issue that should not be subject to political extremism, but somehow is anyway.

All of the new legislation introduced this year regarding the NWS seems to relate back to the decision by NOAA last year to change the 1991 public-private partnership policy. There are people on both sides of the issue that have a stake, particularly from the perspective of the billion-dollar private sector.

Five years ago, to address the debate we're having right now, NOAA had the National Academy of Science's National Research Council take an objective look at roles and responsibilities of government, academia and the private sector in climate services. The study (by scientists for scientists) concluded, among other things, that the 1991 policy needed to be abandoned in favor of a "policy that defines processes for making decisions on products, technologies, and services, rather than rigidly defining the roles of the NWS and the private sector" (National Academy Press, 2003 here). As soon as NOAA started implementing the recommendations of the study, industry started making noise and lobbyists went to work in Washington - hence the flurry of paper.

Personally, I like what the report recommended. It seems to be a lot less politically motivated than any thing else I've read so far, including the proposed legislation. So I am not in favor of any of the current bills under consideration. I am in favor of NOAA, industry and academia implementing the recommendations of the 2003 National Academy report. This would mean that NOAA and the NWS would continue to offer the services I currently enjoy.

I wish I were in charge... just for a week or so.

*sigh* I wish you were too, John.

Tracie

My concern about the bill has nothing to do with the website with red Xs. It has to do with a reading of the text. It's not a big bill, so it doesn't take too long to read and think about, and see the potential.

For your worry about bias and all, the links you provide are from Santorum's comments and from the weather companies. Gosh, wonder what side they would present...

So again, read the bill, forget cults of personalities and who's on what side. Read the bill, read both side's comments, take into account their biases (both sides ARE biased), and make a decision. How about a link to the two other bills you mention? I can't say whether or not there are sites trashing them without doing research. I assume you did that research before making the claim they don't exist.

By the way, the links provided in the original posting did eventually lead to the content of the bill - one link for it was bad, but then later the contents of the bill were posted directly in one the areas. I re-read the text of the bill by following paths from the orginal posting.

Not enacting these bills (or any bill for that matter) does not necessarily mean negligence. It may simply mean that none of the bills fit what is needed and more work needs to be done to figure it out. If they are not considered and debated, then you have a case for negligence. Deciding they are the wrong solution and not enacting them, essentially allowing the status quo to stay until a better solution is figured out is not negligence. Enacting legislation simply because you feel something needs to be done and its the only bill in hand is negligence.

You seem way more interested in the political side of this and venting your problems with the web site and its bias than considering the contents of the proposed legislation.

"Real honest inteligent diologue is needed with factual complete information in able to grasp all aspects of problems we face as a nation and world to enable us to solve the numerous problems we and future generations face."

For sure. But one of the things inherent in societies with free speech is that you yourself get the final responsibility of figuring out what is meaningful from all the voices. It's the messy side of a free society, and can be disconcerting at times, but anything else leads to censorship. Some things will be patently offensive to you, but then your views may be that way to others. So, again, read the various sources, consider their biases, and move on. Railing against everybody who has a bias (other than your own) only means you'll be perpetually pissed.

For me, I would not support this bill as written. But that's just me, I could be wrong...