Slashdot Mirror
Do We Really Need a National Climate Service?
coondoggie writes "I suppose it's natural for Washington to try and wrap issues up in a tidy legislative package for bureaucratic purposes (or perhaps other things more nefarious). But one has to wonder if we really need another government-led group, especially when it comes to the climate and all the sometimes controversial information that entails.
But that's what is under way. Today the House Science and Technology Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Environment held a hearing on the need for a National Climate Service, that could meet the increased demand for climate information, the committee said.
The NCS would provide a single point of contact of information climate forecasts and support for planning and management decisions by federal agencies; state, local, and tribal governments; and the private sector."
Obviously it's a good thing.
At least always better than letting Halliburton, Enron and Total decide what our future looks like.
The US gov't already swallows 36% of GDP. What is feeding another couple hundred parasites?
Send your spendthrift head of state this
I guess they are not political enough.
I mean, the real question is whether or not there's even any climate change going on in the first place! But if we concede the point that it might be happening, is it man-made? Because if it's natural instead of man-made, that changes everything, right?
No, it doesn't. It would still flood a lot of major cities in the world, disrupt crops and change weather patterns. I know you were being satirical, but this point seems to be missing a lot on the debates. Earth doesn't care if we're heating her skin or not, she'll just be hot for a while, shed the parasites and try again. If we as a race want to survive, we'd better do something about that shedding. If anything, if it turns out we're NOT doing it, we're in for a much harder job of fixing it than if it's us...
Money for nothing, pix for free
What is with the paranoid underlying tone of the article ? "nefarious", could be "large government entity" ? When you have people that doesn't want the government to work (i.e last 8 year), we saw positions filled by political criteria rather than individual merits. It's time that the federal government have a organized response and start basing their decision based on scientific merits. All this sounds like is an information dissemination service ? Depending on the mandate of this new organization, what is wrong with organizing and have a focused approach on a large global issue ?
The weather impacts crops, military operations, flight plans, hurricane preparedness, and countless other things. Weather forecasts require data gathered from all around the world. State, local, and tribal governments don't have the reach to collect this data on their own. That leaves only private industry. Do you really want to pay a private company to know what the forecast is, particularly when the data would most likely be collected at taxpayer expense anyway? If weather services were privatized, would it be legal to share the forecast with your colleagues?
What's wrong with the National Weather Service? Part of NOAA.
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
The argument you make is quite dishonest. By conflating activist groups with government leaders, you try to pretend the GP said something that he did not. His point was that history shows that we cannot trust corporate interests to be honest participants in a debate on climate. We cannot trust their data, we cannot trust their motives. They create phony "think tanks" with the sole purpose of obfuscation.
Yes, we need a National Climate Service.
You know what? I trust a democratic (small "D") system. If a multinational corporation pollutes a river, causing cancer deaths and birth defects, we can't vote out the corporate officers and their deep pockets protects them from legal recourse (see: A Civil Action). If I hate the way the government's going, guess what? There's an election coming up. There's always an election coming up. And with the exception of a group Slave States that made a very bad decision in the 1860's, power has transferred peacefully in this system.
You know what's NOT in our Constitution? Capitalism. It's not there, I looked. Not by name, and not by inference. Because capitalism is not the same as "free enterprise" even though people mistakenly think they are synonymous.
But that's a discussion for another day and there are goldfinches on the tree outside my window and my dog wants a walk.
But bluestrat, that was just a shitty troll. Ineffective, wrong-headed and stupid. Plus, you wrapped it all in a troll package with your "I bet I'm gonna get modded down" disclaimer, which is a sure sign that you intended your post to be a troll.
You've got a bit to learn, no matter how long you've been here.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Wow. You're full of hate. The sad part is, I don't think you're trolling - I think you actually believe that stuff.
You "highly doubt" that man-made carbon output is killing this planet? Take a look at this chart: List of Countries Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions
After you look at it, tell me that, for the US alone, 20.4 metric tons of CO2 times 300,000,000 people, isn't having an effect.
Or how about this chart? Greenhouse Gas Emissions Per Capita See how much of an impact deforestation is having?
These are real numbers. All you have is your pseudo-Ayn Randian Libertarian bullshit. We all went through that phase, and once we realized that it had serious flaws, we relegated it to "interesting, but not viable". The reaction to global warming is regulating our lives because so far we've been incapable of doing it ourselves. Capitalism is so concerned with the short-term wealth of its shareholders that it has failed to see the long-term implications of its actions. Burn another rainforest? Bah! We don't live there. Another Alaskan Oil Field? We'll die rich because of it, and screw the rest of ya.
Grow up and look around you. We're doing this. You're part of the problem.
Yes because they're too busy believing that it's a "vast liberal conspiracy" since their corporate-fellating information sources feed them that, and since climate science is so complex that things that to a layman seem like counter-evidence actually are evidence.
Like Antarctica getting more snow a year is actually a sign of a warming climate in Antarctica.
Henry Wallace was right. The American fascist does work by polluting the streams of information.
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
I think the answer to this is a qualified "yes." Climate data analysis is tough - it takes a long time to collect, coordinate, validate, calibrate - and ulimately analyze - climate data. And that's just to tell WHAT is happening, WHY is even harder. One of the things that the National Academies and the Government Accountability Office have found is that there isn't a "home" for climate, so efforts take place in a million different uncoordinated (Read: disorganized) places. If nothing else, the House hearing highlighted that fact. NOAA may not be the best place for a National Climate Office/Service, but they do already have the National Climate Data Center - and at least have the infastruture and operational (not R&D) enviornment to continue the studies. I'm glad a national effort is being discussed - if nothing else it would be good (and hopefully save us all some money) to group some of the climate-studying stovepipes together.