I think new information that presents decision-makers with more informed options in more accurate cost-benefit frameworks should be a good thing.

I could support this in an ideal world, and maybe my fears are unfounded anyway, but I’m not at all convinced that there wouldn’t be a significant difference in this organization’s budget, and perhaps authority, in a near-to-midterm future where CO2-driven AGW is still considered an immediate, catastrophic, AND mostly unaddressed/”unsolved” problem, as opposed to one where it isn’t.

If this potential disparity is realistic, and if the NCS’s work would deal, for example, with projecting regional effects and costs of projected temperature rises or assessing the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of solutions such as air capture or just adaptation, it seems like there’s a very real potential for conflict of interest (a conflict of interest like this worrying me much more being in a government beauracracy than in academia in general) pushing the NCS in the direction of inflated costs, exacerbated dangers, and diminished effectiveness of simple solutions.

As one who thinks we’ll never develop any rational policy on this issue until we turn away from the precautionary principle and begin looking at things in a cost-benefit framework where uncertainty in projections is honestly and accurately taken into account, I’m concerned a NCS would have strong incentives to produce data and positions that unjustly lead policy makers in the other direction.

The existence or not of AGW is completely irrelevant to the concept of a National Climate Service. Climactic changes affect all of us and having better information and understanding of what is going on can lead to better decionmaking that saves money, conserves resources and and potentially protects life and property.

When it comes right down to it, a water resource manager out west doesn’t care either way about AGW. His job depends on allocating scarce resources between a multitude of constituents all demanding it. You think he wouldn’t like better information, data and understanding of what drought conditions were going to do to his area 6 months to a year in the future? These are the types of services that would be provided.

Adding research to develop policy related projections would place science back in its proper place; under thumb of the bureaucracy.

In general, he saw a world that was increasingly becoming reliant on climate data, modeling and information but without a trusted, accountable source for said data. In much the same way as the Weather Service has become the sole official source for weather information (except for the military perhaps), the Climate Service would fill a current void for similar information.

If you’re looking to build a multi-million dollar wind-energy project, where do you get the data on the best place to cite the project for the next 5, 10, 15 years? How does the insurance and risk management industry calculate the true risk of coastal residents to hurricane damage over the same time period? And if you’re installing a multi-billion dollar cap-and-trade scheme, how do you accuratly measure sources of carbon, where carbon moves and how effective the scheme is?

Given the effect on climate of nearly every industry, a National Climate Service is important regardless of where you stand on the issue of AGW and hopefully it won’t get caught up in the politics of the climate issue. Giving people more data and information for their decisions is a good idea.