View Full Version : Dr. Paul, Please KEEP the NWS!
National Weather Service is a federal agency department that's definitely a keeper, I hope you agree! On nights like tonight I am so grateful for their vigilance.
evandi
01-08-2008, 01:12 AM
Why can't states handle weather watching?
sirachman
01-08-2008, 01:14 AM
If you enjoy watching it then you will pay a private company for the exact same thing. I dont watch it, if I want to know what the weather is I walk outside. No offense to people who watch the channel but I dont want to pay taxes so you can watch a tv program. If the channel cant persist as a private enterprise it shouldnt exist.
RPinSEAZ
01-08-2008, 01:14 AM
Even though I'm sure he wants to, he won't be able to get rid of 90% of the stuff he wants to get rid of. I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Electrostatic
01-08-2008, 01:15 AM
Why can't states handle weather watching?
Because they can't afford satellites...
But I think you could almost take the position that the wether service is necessary for the "general welfare" of the united states as it was originally intended... (Instead of how it has been abused...)
Edit: As in look at what happened with Katrina... The federal government did great in utilizing the coast guard and their satellites to predict the path of the storm, in a way which no individual state could match... That said, they were absolutely disastrous when they tried to "manage" the aftermath.
austin356
01-08-2008, 01:17 AM
He will assumably compromise and make them like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Ron2Win
01-08-2008, 01:18 AM
If you enjoy watching it then you will pay a private company for the exact same thing. I dont watch it, if I want to know what the weather is I walk outside. No offense to people who watch the channel but I dont want to pay taxes so you can watch a tv program. If the channel cant persist as a private enterprise it shouldnt exist.
Makes sense. Why should Floridians pay for California's earthquake monitoring?
I live in Florida and I guarantee you there will be a corporation that gives the best coverage for all coastal states.
evandi
01-08-2008, 01:18 AM
Because they can't afford satellites...
But I think you could almost take the position that the wether service is necessary for the "general welfare" of the united states as it was originally intended... (Instead of how it has been abused...)
States are like little countries. They have billions in revenues. If it was deemed important enough they would deal with it.
literatim
01-08-2008, 01:19 AM
Because they can't afford satellites...
But I think you could almost take the position that the wether service is necessary for the "general welfare" of the united states as it was originally intended... (Instead of how it has been abused...)
They can't afford $1 million to launch a satellite?
Tornado warnings would be too late to do much good without the NWS.
newbitech
01-08-2008, 01:19 AM
If you enjoy watching it then you will pay a private company for the exact same thing. I dont watch it, if I want to know what the weather is I walk outside. No offense to people who watch the channel but I dont want to pay taxes so you can watch a tv program. If the channel cant persist as a private enterprise it shouldnt exist.
you must not know anyone living in FL. LOL there are six months out of the year down here where watching the weather is neither exciting nor profitable. Rather than paying a private company, I am sure we would just tax the shit out of the insurance companies and then have that tax passed on to us in the form of higher premiums on our wind and flood riders.
just a little perspective. Also, it wouldn't surprise me if state colleges took this over completely and ran it as a free broadcast for R&D.
Why should each state have to buy its own weather satellite, when we can all use the NWS ones? Makes no sense!
There's a valid argument to be made that certain National Weather services could play a significant role in national security/defense.
For example, say there's a volcanic eruption in the Pacific. Currently, there's a warning system that detects seismic activity.. and can alert the NWS... who can warn people in time to evacuate certain coastal areas.
This system is not in place in the Indian Ocean... had it been in place, thousands of people from Sri Lanka, Thailand, Sumatra etc... might still be alive.
I'm not saying that a private company couldn't do a better job... but I think you need cooperation internationally for such things.
amy31416
01-08-2008, 01:22 AM
Even though I'm sure he wants to, he won't be able to get rid of 90% of the stuff he wants to get rid of. I wouldn't worry too much about it.
That is truth.
evandi
01-08-2008, 01:23 AM
Why should each state have to buy its own weather satellite, when we can all use the NWS ones? Makes no sense!
Because most states don't need NWS. Having one in every state would make no sense.
Ron2Win
01-08-2008, 01:23 AM
Why should each state have to buy its own weather satellite, when we can all use the NWS ones? Makes no sense!
That's socialism. Seriously, I live in Florida, why should I have to pay for Tornado watch in Kansas?
You can always move, can't you?
Electrostatic
01-08-2008, 01:24 AM
They can't afford $1 million to launch a satellite?
Wow, in your dreams.. Geosynchronous weather satellites cost nearly a billion dollars a piece by the time launch and command / control is taken into account.
http://www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/legreg/testimon/109s/Lautenbacher0929.htm
Ron2Win
01-08-2008, 01:26 AM
Wow, in your dreams.. Geosynchronous weather satellites cost nearly a billion dollars a piece by the time launch and command / control is taken into account.
http://www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/legreg/testimon/109s/Lautenbacher0929.htm
Humm, DishNetwork has like 10-12 satellites.
They are a private company....
evandi
01-08-2008, 01:26 AM
Wow, in your dreams.. Geosynchronous weather satellites cost nearly a billion dollars a piece by the time launch and command / control is taken into account.
http://www.ogc.doc.gov/ogc/legreg/testimon/109s/Lautenbacher0929.htm
Many states could easily save up for one. Any state that required the service could easily agree to join in a partnership.
That's socialism. Seriously, I live in Florida, why should I have to pay for Tornado watch in Kansas?
You can always move, can't you?
Why don't YOU move! Hell, why should I pay for the NWS to watch those Florida hurricanes. Currently golf-ball size hail here in my town, tornado en route. How do I ge
Electrostatic
01-08-2008, 01:28 AM
Besides, NOT having real time weather data concerning every square inch of North American Airspace 24 / 7 / 365 redundantly would be a HUGE breach in legitimate national defense.
There are SOME legitimate functions of the federal government, and that would be one of them.
Electrostatic
01-08-2008, 01:29 AM
Humm, DishNetwork has like 10-12 satellites.
They are a private company....
Those are comsats... That's like comparing an iPod to a data center.
Electrostatic
01-08-2008, 01:30 AM
Many states could easily save up for one. Any state that required the service could easily agree to join in a partnership.
Um, ya, that's kinda what the nws is.
Ron2Win
01-08-2008, 01:30 AM
Why don't YOU move! Hell, why should I pay for the NWS to watch those Florida hurricanes. Currently golf-ball size hail here in my town, tornado en route. How do I ge
I am all for abolishing the NWS, heck I think that local TV stations may have better equipment.
Private companies do everything more efficiently and better.
The lack of competition creates sloth, even in Government.
Trigonx
01-08-2008, 01:30 AM
just had tornadoes in several places of Southeastern Wisconsin after having record high temps of 60+ in early January.
evandi
01-08-2008, 01:30 AM
Um, ya, that's kinda what the nws is.
No, we all have to pay for it.
Ron2Win
01-08-2008, 01:33 AM
It's like this, you get a government appointed job, like the Head of the National Service center. You mess up, there is no punishment, because the blame just goes around and around.
A private company messes up, the contract is simply not renewed. Or there are clauses to get out. There will be 10 other companies lined up to do the job better.
MikeStanart
01-08-2008, 01:35 AM
Has Ron Paul even talked about phasing the NWS out?
I seriously doubt this isn't anywhere near the top of the list.
Seems like an ok program; (although I haven't done any research).
evandi
01-08-2008, 01:35 AM
Has Ron Paul even talked about phasing the NWS out?
I seriously doubt this isn't anywhere near the top of the list.
Seems like an ok program; (although I haven't done any research).
It definitely isn't on his radar.
Electrostatic
01-08-2008, 01:36 AM
No, we all have to pay for it.
Yes, we all already pay for it. And we can't "not have it." Not having that data in real time through secure channels would completely cripple the USAF, Air Nat. Guard, and the Coast Gaurd.
I'm all for getting rid of most federal agencies, but not like that.
evandi
01-08-2008, 01:37 AM
Yes, we all already pay for it. And we can't "not have it." Not having that data in real time through secure channels would completely cripple the USAF, Air Nat. Guard, and the Coast Gaurd.
I'm all for getting rid of most federal agencies, but not like that.
Ok, I like these arguments. But the not being able to pay thing is not true.
Dave Pedersen
01-08-2008, 01:38 AM
Why should each state have to buy its own weather satellite, when we can all use the NWS ones? Makes no sense!
Because we have to minimize the federal government even when this causes redundancies. The Federal government's purpose must remain extremely limited as the constitution describes and does not include functions justified simply to avoid redundancy or duplication.
Think what maintaining 50 weather systems can do by way of discovering and refining new techniques and technologies? 50 laboratories of freedom working independently will discover by accident so much more than centralized research could hope to accomplish in science and every other human endeavor.
Let freedom ring (x 50)
ronpaulyourmom
01-08-2008, 01:39 AM
Because they can't afford satellites...
The money comes from us one way or the other, but hey I don't really have an opinion on this subject, I think it can be considerd part of our national infrastructure.
evandi
01-08-2008, 01:40 AM
Because we have to minimize the federal government even when this causes redundancies. The Federal government's purpose must remain extremely limited as the constitution describes and does not include functions justified simply to avoid redundancy or duplication.
Think what maintaining 50 weather systems can do by way of discovering and refining new techniques and technologies? 50 laboratories of freedom working independently will discover by accident so much more than centralized research could hope to accomplish in science and every other human endeavor.
Let freedom ring (x 50)
Each system would also be more streamlined to the types of weather problems the state experiences.
vulture
01-08-2008, 01:42 AM
Weather prediction and monitoring is a weird thing. It does not cost all that much, but only a few countries do it (and for the entire world). In this case, the US subsidizes most of the rest of the world with respect to weather and geological monitoring, as other countries use the US as the authoritative source. Like the Pax Americana in Europe, the rest of the world basically expects the US to bear the burden of monitoring the globe. In fairness, the UK and Japan do a credible job on their own.
Here is what a lot of people do not realize: there are private companies that make a mint off of the public data feeds, and who would make a mint if the government agencies disappeared and they had to pay for their own data feeds. The price of real-time sensor systems has been crashing. Satellites sufficient to do the job are becoming ridiculously cheap, due in some part to the privatization of launch vehicles and the resulting free market price drops.
I actually stand to make a lot of money by letting the government funded monopolies persist, but I'll also be the first in line to say they are neither necessary nor would it cost us that much if we replaced them. Also, the current systems are starting to become pretty redundant. If I can't get my data from one source, I can get it from another. The US has been very generous for decades with its support and funding of monitoring stations around the globe, and it does not even cost us that much. That said, it is not really necessary in this day and age. Most governments can afford to shell out the few bucks required to have a decent system in place that will cover their corner of the world and most realize the political value of doing so.
The National Weather Service is useful and valuable, but there are other private sector (and foreign government) entities waiting in the wings to completely take over its role and which already do in some industries. There are entire markets devoted to trading weather predictions in public markets, so you can be damn sure money is being spent by wealthy individuals to predict the weather as best as possible.
Dave Pedersen
01-08-2008, 01:44 AM
There could be a case made for it to be preserved in the interest of national defense. I'm sure the air force needs nationwide access to instant weather data from one single source.
adpierce
01-08-2008, 01:48 AM
Hummm, interesting thread. My stance is that weather phenomenon is a national concern. It falls within the national government domain. It however ought to be maintained by appropriated taxes from individual states. If they want the NWS to be in their state then they can pay the federal government taxes... if not they can opt out. I would argue there's a strong state interest to be able to access state weather conditions.
cjhowe
01-08-2008, 01:50 AM
It definitely isn't on his radar.
:D:D I see what you did there :cool:
Electrostatic
01-08-2008, 01:52 AM
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/hnx/doppler.php
Notice they are called "NWS/DOD" radar sites?
evandi
01-08-2008, 01:57 AM
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/hnx/doppler.php
Notice they are called "NWS/DOD" radar sites?
The sites themselves were probably created in the cold war right?
They will be there whether or not the NWS exists.
CountryRoads
01-08-2008, 01:57 AM
Even though I'm sure he wants to, he won't be able to get rid of 90% of the stuff he wants to get rid of. I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Best post in thread.
Lets not forget that the Congress is still there even if Ron Paul gets elected. Ron Paul can do many good things but a lot will still be left to Congress. They will not get rid of the NWS. It's been tried before by Rick Santorum. He tried, failed and then didn't get elected again.
evan2024
01-08-2008, 02:03 AM
If you would like to read the authority congress has refer to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Then read the Tenth Amendment that says Congress can only do those things. Anything else, including the National Weather Service, is left in the domain of the states.
CountryRoads
01-08-2008, 02:06 AM
If you would like to read the authority congress has refer to Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Then read the Tenth Amendment that says Congress can only do those things. Anything else, including the National Weather Service, is left in the domain of the states.
And we have the Supreme Court that decides those things. Of course, I don't agree with the Supreme Court on a lot of cases. In my opinion, they decide things based on political ideology. Congress has the power of the purse....
vulture
01-08-2008, 02:26 AM
There could be a case made for it to be preserved in the interest of national defense. I'm sure the air force needs nationwide access to instant weather data from one single source.
Perhaps ironically, the US Navy runs their own authoritative weather service. The US actually has not one but TWO weather modeling bureaus. We have two weather modeling/prediction services paid for by the taxpayer while the rest of the world largely uses foreign models (usually the US ones).
We're being bombarded with tornadoes here. One after the other, all night long. It's pretty hard to take. Had to interrupt my last post to run to shelter quickly.
This local weather will be in the news nationwide in the morning.
barbz
01-08-2008, 02:37 AM
We're being bombarded with tornadoes here. One after the other, all night long. It's pretty hard to take. Had to interrupt my last post to run to shelter quickly.
This local weather will be in the news nationwide in the morning.
Stay safe Suzu. Glad you're ok. I've been watching the weather tonight too and can't decide whether it's safe to go to bed or not.
electronicmaji
01-08-2008, 02:44 AM
lol
Doubt the NWS will ever go defunct but open market would do it better you could probably let the *gasp* normal people access all this information instead of just the media and social elite.
The local NBC affiliate just went off the air. Tornadoes are touching down in the city of Springfield as I type. CBS is still on the air, their studio is in a different part of town, but they may go off at any moment. This is so spooky!
I've been watching the weather tonight too and can't decide whether it's safe to go to bed or not.
St. Louis should be OK tonight.
Tornadoes touching down in five counties simultaneously, just west of me. So far they've missed my town by a hair, but the sirens have gone off a few times here already tonight.
And it's HOT outside! January 8th, and it was 75 at sundown. It might be even warmer right now in the middle of the night.
WEIRD!
electronicmaji
01-08-2008, 03:06 AM
Lol its thundering down here but we missed it all thanks to the beautiful ozark mountains we haven't had a tornado touchodwn in nearly 10 years.
I miss visiting Springdale AR! Used to get down there at least once a month before the gas prices got too high to afford the trip. I love the ice skating place, forgot the name... big complex in Springdale... And they've got a great public library and some fine Oriental restaurants where you can stuff yourself for next to nothing.
electronicmaji
01-08-2008, 03:16 AM
NWA is the home of the rich and fabulous now. Nothing but high class malls and entertainment districts.
Sirens going off again. Much louder this time.... Moving cats into closet... They hate me for this.... crap!
romeshomey
01-08-2008, 03:26 AM
National Weather Service is a federal agency department that's definitely a keeper, I hope you agree! On nights like tonight I am so grateful for their vigilance.
You don't think private individuals / companies would be able to do the same job?
I bet if there were competition in the market we would even have better weather service since it would create competition. No doubt about it.
Ron LOL
01-08-2008, 03:32 AM
I think you could present a strong case that accurate weather information is of national security interest in that a natural disaster could weaken our defense.
john_anderson_ii
01-08-2008, 03:32 AM
Congress has the authority to provide for the common defense. The NWS is vital for national defense, so vital in fact that weather conditions are the second item in a formal intelligence brief. It could be moved under the DoD for budget reasons, but it's not going away.
Birdlady
01-08-2008, 03:34 AM
If there wasn't the national weather service private companies would be sprouting up all over the place to fill in the demand for it.
The free market would undoubtedly agree that it is important to have weather alerts when there is nasty weather outside. Private companies would hire tons of experts and spotters to fill in the role of the government weathermen.
I don't see service being interrupted at all if Ron Paul wanted to get rid of the national weather service. I can't imagine though that this is high on his list of priorities. Let's get rid of the IRS and Department of education first! :D
Back online for the time being. I can't handle much more stress tonight. I felt the house trembling. This severe weather system is supposed to be moving out of the area within an hour.
Once again I am very grateful for the NWS which provides the data for the local tv and radio stations.
chowdy
01-08-2008, 05:06 AM
It seems like the NWS is essentially a defense program that happens to have immense usefulness outside of defense. Justified, IMO.
MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2
01-08-2008, 05:12 AM
Yes, we all already pay for it. And we can't "not have it." Not having that data in real time through secure channels would completely cripple the USAF, Air Nat. Guard, and the Coast Gaurd.
I'm all for getting rid of most federal agencies, but not like that.
I'm with you on that. That data is needed. It's more of an extra bonus that it's released to the public in a presentable format. We're paying for it anyway, so we should get it.
ronpaulfollower999
01-08-2008, 05:22 AM
If you enjoy watching it then you will pay a private company for the exact same thing. I dont watch it, if I want to know what the weather is I walk outside. No offense to people who watch the channel but I dont want to pay taxes so you can watch a tv program. If the channel cant persist as a private enterprise it shouldnt exist.
The Weather Channel? Thats not the National Weather Service. The Weather Channel is a privately owned. And I think it should go off the air because they suck at predicting the weather.
Birdlady
01-08-2008, 05:23 AM
The Weather Channel? Thats not the National Weather Service. The Weather Channel is a privately owned. And I think it should go off the air because they suck at predicting the weather.
The NWS last week said we were going to get up to 9 inches of snow in my area. We ended up with less than an inch! lol :p
MicroBalrog
01-08-2008, 05:25 AM
Because they can't afford satellites...
My college owns a satellite of it's own, you're telling me Florida can't?
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.