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."

Comments

Obviously it's a good thing.

[BlackPignouf]

Obviously it's a good thing.
At least always better than letting Halliburton, Enron and Total decide what our future looks like.

Re:Obviously it's a good thing.

[polar red]

There is something terribly wrong with your reasoning: Halliburton, Enron and Total have only 1 objective: their bottom line. That's not true for greenpeace : they want to inspire people to leave this world in a better state than how they got it. The peoples need and the nations need are what define them; in case of Halliburton : their only thing that define them are their shareholders pocket.

Re:Obviously it's a good thing.

[bsane]

a better state than how they got it

What if I don't agree with what greenpeace is shoving down my throat as 'a better state'?

One could argue that all Halliburton wants to do is leave the world in a better state... as defined by them- really the same goal as greenpeace, just different definitions of 'better'.

Re:Obviously it's a good thing.

[LordKazan]

The NOAA and it's subsidiaries (which the NCS would be one) are one of the most effective government agencies ever created. Not only is it filled with competent scientists it's also filled with ones that know how to keep up with technology to disseminate information as efficiently as possible.

Re:Obviously it's a good thing.

[WindBourne]

in case of Halliburton : their only thing that define them are their shareholders pocket.
Actually, that is false. It is NOT about their shareholder's pocket. If so, then they (and all American corps) would be thinking LONG-TERM. Far too many actions are short-term. They are looking only at their OWN pockets.

Re:Obviously it's a good thing.

[Enry]

Shouldn't you be moving to Somalia? I hear there's no pesky government or taxes getting in the way of free enterprise there.

Doesn't that sound just as retarded as your statement?

Re:Obviously it's a good thing.

[garett_spencley]

Environmental issues are a perfect example of government failing to do it's job.

We need to ask "what is the role of government?" Classic liberals felt that the only role of government is to protect the rights of individuals. All rights are property rights (I can elaborate on that if you'd like me to but I'll skip it for brevity).

During the industrial revolution many companies were sued by others who felt that air pollution was a violation of their property rights (not only their land and air but their lungs - ie: bodies - as well). Judges ruled basically that "well, we know these are clear violations but we're going to look the other way because we don't want to hinder economic development" (!!!)

Now, you can blame the industrialists all you want. But if government were doing it's one, single job then we wouldn't have air pollution. The only way a company can survive is to produce goods and services that benefit the lives of others. When people feel that their rights are being violated and the means they've chosen to enforce those rights is not functioning then you get a case of capitalism deteriorating and externalizing costs ... by using the very institution designed for the opposite purpose.

Re:Obviously it's a good thing.

[Ash Vince]

I always find Americans talking about climate change hilarious.

In my country we are taught the ins and outs of climate change in science lessons. This way you learn the theory behind it in the same way and with the same scepticism that you learn to study all scientific theories. Since this has been this way for decades even people in their 30's like myself gained some exposure to climate change ideas in this way.

This is very important since if you just relied on soundbites like "Global Warming" you can dismiss climate change as not happening as your part of the world just had unusually cold weather. I have lost track of home many times I have heard this argument. Unfortunately it is based on an over simplification of climate change: that the temperature is getting hotter everywhere. The truth is the the average global temperature is going up, but that might result in your neck of the woods getting colder.

Like it or not, understanding Climate Change involves understanding some science. In particular it involves an amount of Atmospheric Physics, not one of the friendliest topics to the layman. So with this in mind you can either study the subject for years (or maybe decades) and figure out what is going on or get someone else to study it for you.

If Greenpeace commission an independent study that they have no editorial control over the Oil companies listed above are still going to dismiss it as propaganda if it suggests things like using less of their products. If the Oil companies commission a study that they have no editorial control over people in the Greenpeace camp still will not believe that they had no editorial control.

The idea behind this latest government sponsored group being set up is simple: Try and get a group to come out with some findings that are not immediately rubbished by the side that the disagree with.

This approach has worked in Europe but unfortunately as the studies were all done abroad they are still treated with scepticism in the US. Hopefully this will result in a Government funded, truly impartial report that can be used is impartial evidence in public debate about climate change in the US.

The problem is that the Oil companies have seen the scientific evidence from a previous impartial studies like this and have come to the conclusion that they would rather this report does not come out until they can realign their core business away from Oil. They will therefore mobilise their considerable influence on Capitol Hill in order to keep government out of research into Climate Change.

Re:Obviously it's a good thing.

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

You know, there are whole states that are run "for the betterment of their people". In other words, altruistic states where decisions are not made on economic merit, but on the basis of "justice".

You're absolutely right that Halliburton is not a company that decides based on justice, it decides based on economic self-intrest.

And you're completely right that Greenpeace DOES decide actions based on (their idea of) justice (more realistically : on how "righteous" it makes them look to others. Therefore greenpeace is, first and foremost, a media and public relations organization. They do not produce things with the intention of buying land and turning it into a voluntary "sustainable community" : they demand laws to force others to do so). Economic self-intrest is at best a very minute factor in their decision making. Only rich people join greenpeace, people without any financial worries.

So let's look at some relatively large "justice based" organisations :
-> North Korea (stealing from the poor and giving to cronies)
-> Cuba
-> Iran (we are not to judge other religions, whose essence is other opinions of justice. That their ("allah's" if you're truly naive) opinion of justice includes stoning innocent women "must not be judged", that would be racist. I wonder if you "progressives" consider the stoned victims of muslim "justice" racists. Odds are they do not think very well of that "justice", of that religion)
-> Saudi Arabia (same goes, except with slightly less official prostitution (also called mut'a "marriage"))
-> China (stealing from the rich and giving to the politicians *cough* *ahem*, of course, I mean giving to the people)
-> Soviet Russia (same goes)
-> ...

This guy said it best

Greenpeace consists of individuals, who care, first and foremost, for themselves. There's nothing saintly or even remarkable about greenpeace members, they are perfectly human. And it shows :

Greenpeace opposes anything with co2 exhaust AND hates the one solution to the co2 problem that might actually work (today, not in 50 years) : nuclear power. They are also already decided : they oppose nuclear fusion, if and when it becomes available.

Also greenpeace ignores massive co2 exhaust where it is politically inconvenient : ever looked at a wind turbine ? Every last square millimeter you see is reprocessed oil. On the inside, tons of components are made with oil, and the remainder, the steel supports, are made by burning coal (that's how cast iron is still made, coal is just too cheap and convenient. Everywhere you mine iron you will find coal deposits on top of it, between it, ...)

I hope this post can help you understand : good intentions do not necessarily result in good results. In fact, some very, VERY bad results had very good intentions (like all communist states, most dictatorships, lots of genocides, ...)

Re:Obviously it's a good thing.

[digitig]

Yeah, because we know that Greenpeace, PETA, Nancy Pelosi, the DailyKOS/MoveOn crowd, George Soros, Al Gore, and Harry Reid will make reasoned, informed decisions balancing the peoples' and the nations' needs with the demands of the environmental whack-jobs.

Nope, they'd be pretty much as bad as leaving it yo the energy companies. Which is why the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment is looking at a National Climate Service rather than leaving it to the partisan groups you mentioned. Whether they'll do a good job or not might be an interesting debate, but saying that one group of people not getting the job would make as bad a job of it as another group of people not getting the job is simply irrelevant.

Re:Obviously it's a good thing.

[TapeCutter]

I am not an American but it sure would help if certain American's and their pet lobbyists stopped using psuedo-science and lies to convince small-minded gullible fools that Al Gore has the power and/or charisma to corrupt the members of every major scientific instutution on Earth. I have even had such fools here on slashdot tell me I can't point to the journals Nature or Science when talking about AGW because apparently they too are part of Al Gore's global conspiracy.

Here are some examples of the lies and lobbying I am talking about, Senator Inhofe who's list of desenting scientists, has as much cedibility as the dicovery institute list of scientists that supposedly reject evolution but that has not stopped a large number of slashdotter's from waving it around like a magic wand that somehow makes facts dissapear. Then there is the "Heartland institute" run by one Fred Singer who was also prominent in the tabacco industry's anti-science propoganda. Another site that has raised it's ugly head and that can also be related to the anti-science lobby of the tabacco companies is called IceCap, this site specializes in conflating various regions of ice all over the planet and is incapable of ditingushing the North pole from the south pole. It is run by a guy who is on the payroll at the "Science and Public Policy Institute", who are in turn funded by the "Frontiers of Freedom" which is the lobbting brain fart of yet another (ex) US senator. Wallop and Singer are mates from the tabacco industries anti-science cmapaign, the major contributors to the Frontiers of Freedom include Philip Morris and ExxonMobil.

Yep, these anti-science and anti-environment politicians/CEO's have nothing but good intentions, they publish their propoganda to protect you from "environmental whack jobs" and the scientific community who make ludicrous claims such as smoking causes cancer or that a healthy economy and a healthy environment are not mutually exclusive. They have somehow convinced a large chunk of the US that it's not them who are running scams and lying it's the scientific community under the direction of Al Gore who are the liars and scammers.

"Get real."

How about you get real, pull your head out of the sand and drop the alarmist hyperbole, nobody is putting greenpeace in charge of anything but there is a problem and the anti-enviroment/anti-science rhetoric/popoganda coming from the US over the last decade is what has perverted any attempt at a real solution.

"(Yeah, I know. This will almost certainly get modded down to oblivion by KOSdot mods, probably modded "-1 Troll" but screw it. I've got the karma to burn.)"

I have no idea who KOSdot are and I'm not a fan of greenpeace but I agree that your misguided alarmisim should be moderated into oblivion.

Yea, why the fuck not?

[marco.antonio.costa]

The US gov't already swallows 36% of GDP. What is feeding another couple hundred parasites?

Re:Yea, why the fuck not?

[RiotingPacifist]

You cant expect numbers to agree with him. That's just unfair, everybody knows reality has a liberal bias!

Re:Yea, why the fuck not?

[LordKazan]

which every economist that doesn't have their head so far up their arse they can see sunlight would say you're wrong about.

At the beginning of the depression government intervention did worsen it, because of wrong-headed libertarian/laissez-faire policies combined with economists still stuck on mercantilism. But then along came economists who knew what they were doing and said "the government needs to inject money into the system. Now." and the government did that and things got better. After the great depression we passed numerous banking regulations and other anti-predatory-corporation regulations and everything was fine and Dandy - the boom/bust cycle even stopped and we stayed on a generally upward trend continuously.

until President Raygun [intentional] with the help of congress in the 80s started pulling strings out of those regulations: almost instantly the S&L crisis hits.. then we started back into the boom/bust cycle. then even more regulations were pulled out by the right-wing-dlc-democrat clinton along with the republican congress in 1998 then a great many more under bush 2000-2006 along with other various bad fiscal policies [lets cut the already unreasonably low* taxes of the rich thereby further subsiziding their excess] and WHAAAM massive stock market crash along with a massive banking shock: just like the crash of 1929.

[*

Laffer Curve describes the "maximum utilization" point for tax rates, above that and the tax rate does harm, below that and the tax rate isn't fully utilizing the tax base. Lowest estimate of that t* in the US is 50%, highest 80%. Top flight marginal tax rate for the rich under clinton 36%, under bush tax cuts, 33%. CBO places us clearly on the left side of the curve where tax cuts as a means of economic stimulus are virtually a waste of time. Virtually because cutting them for the bottom wage earners is always effective stimulous, cutting them for the top tier wealthy individuals is ONLY effective when you're on the right side of the Laffer curve]

Re:Yea, why the fuck not?

[OctaviusIII]

Dude, I think you missed a couple economics classes. Any GDP measure you have of the footprint of government is what proportion of GDP is government-created. That is to say - assuming your numbers are correct - 36% of our GDP is government produced not "swallowed". Our federal tax burden is around 28% of GDP. That means that the government takes in 28% of GDP while providing 36% of GDP, indicating that it actually adds a significant amount of value (28.3%, to be precise). I don't think that counts as parasitic.

no, of course not

[jollyreaper]

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? A 10 degree change in average temp may see the polar caps melt and seas rise by 200 feet but if this was going to happen anyway it's no longer a problem, right? But I still say the jury's out on this one. Just like with the addictiveness of nicotine. There's been no conclusive scientific evidence from scientists paid by the tobacco industry to show that there's any addictiveness with nicotine. Oh, and that prison torture in Iraq? Did you not listen to the press conference? Bad apples in the lowest ranks of the military, nothing more.

I really wish people would pay more attention to the official story. A lot of time and money has been put into getting it down pat and it's incredibly disrespectful to then go and listen to other sources.

Re:no, of course not

[richie2000]

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...

The National Academies recommended this

[DrJay]

This will undoubtedly induce all sorts of railing about both the government and climate, but this step was actually recommended by the National Academies of Science, and I'm happy that it's being seriously considered. The NAS issued in a report that, distilled down, says that we're already paying for climate science, but the info generated by that work isn't reaching the people who need it most, like the ones that have to manage water supplies in the desert southwest. When those people do find the research, it's typically not structured in a way that's especially useful to them. (For a more elaborate summary of the report, see here - full disclosure, i wrote that).

So, this is largely an attempt to take information we're already producing (the government has paid for climate research for a long time through NOAA and the NSF) and make it useful.

What about NOAA?

[schwit1]

I guess they are not political enough.

Big government entity ?

[Davemania]

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 ?

Weather is global

[slashqwerty]

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?

Re:Weather is global

[LordKazan]

If AccuWeather and Rick Santorum had their way not only would we be paying for the NOAA/NWS to make those forcasts, but then we wouldn't be able to get that data from them without going through a pay-company like AccuWeather.

AccuWeather wants us to pay for it twice, just so we can pay them for work they didn't do.

[see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AccuWeather ]

Re:Yes

[ruckc]

Way to go. We already have a national weather service. Why would you encourage the government to create yet another redundant service.

I thought tracking weather involved tracking the history of weather, which would lead me to believe that it would take a small investment into the national weather service to create a climate forcasting/monitoring service. Oh wait, NOAA's NWS already tracks climate.

If you'd read the article - this *is* NOAA.

[Shag]

The NCS would fall under the auspices of NOAA but would utilize the expertise and resources of other federal agencies to meet the growing demand for climate services, the committee stated.

NOAA describes the NCS as being the nation's identified, accessible, official source of authoritative, regular, and timely climate information. That includes historical and real-time data, monitoring and assessments, research and modeling, predictions and projections, decision support tools and early warning systems, and the development and delivery of valued climate services.

Which part of this is unclear? This is NOAA (who are good at what they do) getting access to even more "expertise and resources." Sounds cool.

National Weather Service

[TechForensics]

What's wrong with the National Weather Service? Part of NOAA.

Parent is definition of troll

[PopeRatzo]

because we know that Greenpeace, PETA, Nancy Pelosi, the DailyKOS/MoveOn crowd, George Soros, Al Gore, and Harry Reid...

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.

Re:Yes we do.

[ahankinson]

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.

Re:Yes

[kholburn]

Because "climate" and "weather" are different things.

Re:How is hyperbole

[LordKazan]

1) actually food planet based biofuels (esp soy diesel) just got canned by Obama's EPA - failed some tests that disqualify it from the running for those new green biofuel subsidies. I live in Iowa, our farmers were howling - I told them to go rent space to wind farms ($2k-$5k/year per turbine)

2) I doubt the administration hates it.. find me cites [Yucca doesn't count, the site was actually found upon further analysis to be unsuitable for long term waste storage - has a semi-active fault line running right under it]

The problem with Nuclear energy in this country is that it has been demonized - Look at the media reaction to TMI

3) Prove it. If you mean "the companies will just pass on the cost" you MIGHT have an argument.
PS I'm hardly some rich elitist
My parents, combined, made less than $45k/year when I grew up... so I'm not exactly what you'd call "rich" (though I now make that singlehandedly.. 1 year out of college w/ a computer science degree)
Between my wife and I we have a house worth of college loans to pay back

4) As for Al Gore and MTBE, he never claimed to be infallible.

5) No. Shit. A Tank gets .5 MPG Diesel.

Re:Yes we do.

[ahankinson]

Nevermind - I googled it.

Seriously? The top hit for that quote is a website that doesn't cite its sources. Trying to track down the origins of that quote leads to OTHER websites that don't cite their sources either. (c.f. this one, from 2007, this one, which looks suspiciously familiar, from 2005, and this one, which just links back to the first one. You gotta do better than that.

Re:Yes we do.

[LordKazan]

your "Science" is wrong.

"The early part of the Carboniferous was mostly warm; in the later part of the Carboniferous, the climate cooled."

The carbon load in the atmosphere dropped due to significant coral reef activity over a great number of epicontinental sea area fixing that carbon into limestone.

try this graph:
http://www.scotese.com/images/globaltemp.jpg

the Carboniferous started with average around 20C in the Devonian then dropped to 10C by the Early Permian

On standing up the NCS

[brennz]

Disclaimer: I work for the satellite branch of NOAA, NESDIS

NOAA's current structure is not optimal for executing the climate mission.
http://www.pco.noaa.gov/org/NOAA_Organization.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Oceanic_and_Atmospheric_Administration
http://www.ppi.noaa.gov/PPI_Capabilities/Documents/BOM.pdf
Although many have suggested that the NWS would be the ideal home for this function, NWS is overly focused on operational meteorology in my opinion, and execution of the climate mission is divided between NESDIS, NWS, NOS and OAR.

NESDIS operates three environmental data centers which are effectively the archive for the climate mission, along with the large array data system.
NCDC http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html
NGDC http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/
NODC http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/
CLASS http://www.class.ncdc.noaa.gov/saa/products/welcome ).
Other line offices in NOAA operate systems that are likewise focused on the climate mission, primarily in the NWS, NOS, and OAR.
Some have suggested it would be ideal to take a small part of the NWS, NOS, OAR, the data centers and CLASS, to stand up a new line office, The National Climate Service. This could be performed more as a reorganization of NOAA internally, without the bureaucratic trappings of another new line office, along with dual-hatting of a CIO and CFO from other line offices in NOAA

As an alternative, NOAA could use the matrix goal team structure in order to create the climate service. I believe such an approach would be ineffective, due to the lack of decision-making ability at those levels. NOAA, at the top, has an Executive Committee and an Executive Panel, that are crucial for determining budget priorities from NOAA's small budget. A National Climate Service, to be successful, must have representation at that level.