Comments on: Taking the Initiative: Public/Private Weather Debate Continues…

By: Brian Schmidt

Brian Schmidt — Wed, 06 Jul 2005 14:36:16 +0000

Thanks for the clarification, Joel. I think the process should be as open and transparent as possible. This seems to me to be a classic case of a broadly-diffused public benefit being attacked by a small group that stands to gain a great deal in opposition to the public, so that small group will try and work quietly behind the scenes, as with Rick Santorum. I can see now how you may have been criticizing that behind-the-scenes process.

On another level though, I don’t see that much need for a process because I think the commercial meteorologists should just leave the status quo alone, allowing the National Weather Service to communicate directly to the public with the information that the public paid for.

]]>

By: Joel Gratz

Joel Gratz — Tue, 05 Jul 2005 02:02:38 +0000

A brief response to Brian Schmidt’s comment: I’m sorry if I gave the impression that I am exclusively pro-private sector. I am not. I agree with some arguments of the private sector, and I agree with some arguments of the government. In general, I am calling attention to the fact that during this long standing debate, neither side is focusing on the development of a process to settle the differeing viewpoints of the sectors. Each side tries to stake its claim, but I feel the real success will occur when the sectors come together and agree on a process that can settle disputes over products and services now and in the future when new technologies will surely put more fuel on the fire.

]]>

By: Erik Noble

Erik Noble — Mon, 27 Jun 2005 16:20:34 +0000

The Public-Private Partnership of weather services ordeal marks yet another debate over an otherwise healthy and well-functioning system. Our delivery and communication services have survived and evolved amidst such debates between private and public sectors.

Unfortunately, this debate does not attempt to solve any problem at all because it fails to connect the debate with how the average american values their weather services. The debate outlined in the NRC’s 2003 “Fair Weather Report”, previous congressional hearings from the private industry, and the Santorum Senate Bill argue about whether the academic and government portions of our weather services should become part of the private market.

Yet, this debate begs the question of whether a problem exists with how americans (individuals and private businesses) receive weather information and if they are willing to pay more for the same basic services in the future.

What is really “lost” is how the public-private partnership of weather services arguement represents the values of those who receive weather services, and whether it is a problem that is worth the time and the effort to solve.

All parties involved should acknowledge this as a “values debate” before setting defined roles of each sector for the provision of weather services. Collaborative processes between the communities will only help settle differences and strengthen an otherwise healthy service to the american public and private businesses.

]]>

By: Brian Schmidt

Brian Schmidt — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 23:18:23 +0000

I’ve referenced this post here:

http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_backseatdriving_archive.html#111965502590364975

]]>

By: Brian Schmidt

Brian Schmidt — Fri, 24 Jun 2005 22:47:38 +0000

I don’t see any reason, at all, for withholding taxpayer-created weather information from the taxpaying public. The only justification is if the funding for the government didn’t come from general taxpayers but from private meteorologists. Is that the case? Even if it is, only the privately-funded information should be sequestered.

Everything else I’ve read about this issue indicates it is a naked attempt to withhold a public benefit for the benefit of a powerful corporation that supports Senator Santorum.

]]>