I suppose its 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-lead group, especially when it comes to the climate and all the sometimes controversial information that entails.
But that's what's 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.
"Climate affects all of us everyday in communities across the country. As our ability to understand and recognize climate cycles and patterns has grown, so has the demand for more information," said Chairman Brian Baird (D-WA) in a statement. "It is in our best interest to structure a service that will utilize our expertise to deliver information that will not only support us nationally, but at the regional and local scale where adaptation and response plans can best be implemented."
According a release from the committee, the hearing included witnesses from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the Department of Agriculture, and other organizations that deliver climate services as well as witnesses who utilize climate information that is currently available.
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.
One has to wonder though are climate issues, which can require nimble action in some cases really be served by what would likely end up being a huge governmental entity.
The ClimateScienceWatch.org site put the challenges this way:
The need to be able to translate the fruits of the good work of the IPCC [Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change], the US Climate Change Science Program, and other ongoing scientific climate-related research and observations into information that is usable, useful, timely and relevant to people whose lives and livelihoods depend on present and future climate conditions is what the drive to create US National Climate Service is all about. In collaboration with officials from other agencies and research institutions, NOAA has been engaged in a deliberative planning process for establishing an overall framework within the federal government that would spell out the respective roles and responsibilities of NOAA and other federal and non-federal entities, and provide a prescription for managing and operating a NCS.
Though the idea has been kicked around for years-for example, the National Research Council has issued two reports of relevance: A Climate Services Vision: First Steps Toward the Future (2001) and Fair Weather: Effective Partnerships in Weather and Climate Services (2003)-a consensus has still not been achieved on how best to design, operate, and fund such an entity, or even whether a National Climate Service as it is being currently framed is the right vehicle for meeting today's needs.
What do you think?
Layer 8 in a box
Check out these other hot stories:
Proposed peer-to-peer technology law sparks animosity
Is the future of solar energy in space?
Hackneyed or amazing? Online system rates photos by artistic quality
Identity thieves get reprieve as FTC backs off Red Flags rules again
NASA's electronic nose can sniff out cancer, space stench
What kind of data center can you build with $500 million?
Colossal spy airships with 15-story radars get $400M reality check
eBay, Xerox fraudster welcomed to federal prison
Giant, 1 million MPH space tornadoes drive northern lights
Weather forecasts threatened by satellite network costs, delays
Cisco, NASA hacker indicted on intrusion, trade secret theft charges
ha ha ha... Not funny but scary
Hilarious news.
More offices means bigger fear they generate to survive. How many "Old Families" will grow from your tax money? The more money Americans throw at fighting the climate change, the harder it will be to scientifically question the data this scam is based upon.
Stop Doubting Science
THERE IS NO UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE NEED TO LIMIT CARBON EMISSIONS
do we need another govt agency?
in the 70's we had the bunk of "global cooling".
now we have the bunk of "global warming".
the earth has cycles, end of story.
It's only end of story if
It's only end of story if you're a closed-minded person who is more interested in politics than actually reviewing the science. It's warmer than ever, got there faster than ever, and isn't going to stop unless we drastically and nearly immediately reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Otherwise, there won't be any land left for the current occupants of the planet.
Science or pseudo science?
It's been very cool in Hawaii and California this entire year.
You need to distinguish between pseudo science of computer models and science of collecting hard facts experimentally.
Government is funding 90% just the computer calculations. These are highly unreliable and easy to manipulate into results that you want to see. See video:
http://www.pyrabang.com?id=d3e547
Also before you blame the CO2 emissions on any kind of warming, you need to compare with warming of other planets which happened lately. Unlikely these have been influenced by the CO2 emmissions from us humans.
You need a lot more work done before I'm convinced.
Pseudo science
Over the past decade, warming predictions of the IPCC models have not been sustained. Furthermore, the historic temperature record shows first warming, then more CO2 in the atmosphere (as a result of oceans releasing CO2 as they warm.) Only politicians say game over. Science says not so fast.
The sky is falling! The sky
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Globaloney
So let me get this straight: the atmosphere has about four molecules of CO2 per 10,000 molecules of other gases [oxygen, nitrogen, etc.]
But the UN's IPCC is trying to convince us that if CO2 rises to five parts per 10,000, runaway global warming and climate catastrophe will result.
Ri-i-i-i-ght.
The planet has been cooling since 2003, while entirely beneficial carbon dioxide ["carbon" to the scientifically illiterate] has been steadily increasing. How do the gorons explain that? They say, "global warming causes global cooling.
Folks, you can believe CO2 is gonna getcha. But it won't. All that an increase in this very minor trace gas will accomplish is to give Big Government more power. They are literally trying to tax the air we breathe.
CO2 is just as harmless and as beneficial as H2O. Life cannot exist without both. CO2 has been twenty times higher in the geologic past without triggering anything except much more abundant and diverse life.
Putting one more molecule per ten thousand isn't going to even be noticeable. The U.S. Navy allows 5,000 ppmv of CO2 in submarines with zero ill effects.
This is simply a money scam, folks. A way the government can tax the air. Don't let 'em do it. Push back!
Post new comment