NOAA Requests Establishment Of Climate Service (No New Cost) - House Says No - WP

[hatrack]

At first look, the proposal is as dull, bureaucratic and routine as an agency request to Congress can be. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration wanted to reshuffle its offices to establish a National Climate Service akin to the agency’s National Weather Service. It asked for no new funding to do so.

But in a political climate where talk of the earthly kind of climate can be radioactive, the answer in last week’s budget deal was “no.” Congress barred NOAA from launching what the agency bills as a “one-stop shop” for climate information.

Demand for such data is skyrocketing, NOAA administrator Jane Lubchenco told Congress earlier this year. Farmers are wondering when to plant. Urban planners want to know whether groundwater will stop flowing under subdivisions. Insurance companies need climate data to help them set rates.

But the climate service, first floated under President George W. Bush, became predictably politicized. “Our hesi­ta­tion,” Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) told Lubchenco at a hearing in June, “is that the climate services could become little propaganda sources instead of a science source.”

EDIT

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/congress-nixes-national-climate-service/2011/11/18/gIQAxYvIgN_story.html

[madrchsod]

1. the republicans do not realize that....

most if not all the companies that sell this info to farmers and others get the info from the us government,states and other countries.

free site

http://www.stormpulse.com/severe/il/dixon


business site

https://secure.www.stormpulse.com/products/?up=1&rk=ylnk

homeland security uses this site.

[cyberpj]

2. The actual WaPo headline reads: Congress kills request for National Climate Service

No, Washington Post, REPUBLICANS killed the request.
Even headlines are misleading on purpose for political reasons.

There is no mention of Dems approving and Repubs killing until the last sentence of the article -
and even then it's worded in such a way as to say, quote: "Republicans won".
Yeah, damn liberal press.

snip-
But the climate service, first floated (and killed) under President George W. Bush, became predictably politicized. “Our hesi­ta­tion,” Rep. Andy Harris (R-Md.) told Lubchenco at a hearing in June, “is that the climate services could become little propaganda sources instead of a science source.”

At the same hearing, a key opponent to the service, Rep. Ralph M. Hall (R-Tex.), said he recognized that “certain climate services can provide value.” But he fretted that the reorganization would “severely harm vital research at NOAA.” In September, Hall’s tone turned decidedly less friendly. As chair of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, he launched an investigation of NOAA. Hall claimed the agency was operating “a shadow climate service operation” without congressional approval.

(OMG, this particular bought-and-paid-for Republican is the chairman of a committee on SCIENCE while he fights to suppress it!)

snip-
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change buttressed that message last week. A report from the world’s top climate science group warned of more extreme weather, more frequent droughts, worse downpours and more dramatic flooding.

snip-
In the NOAA budget battle, the Democratic-led Senate approved most of the climate service in its budget. The Republican-led House approved none of it. Led by Hall, the Republicans won.

(Whoop, there it IS! -And yet it's still presented in such a way that "Republicans won". Will we EVER have objective news reporting again?)

[saras]

3. "propaganda sources instead of a science source." ALL science is leftist propaganda.