saltysenior Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 NWS and private firms don't generally compete with one another. They complement one another. The NWS-private sector relationship is an exampe of a public-private partnership that truly works (mutual benefits for both sectors and enhanced value for all weather consumers/general public). That's an overgeneralization. Verification scores demonstrate that the NWS delivers amazing value. In 2008, the NOAA had the highest rating possible for a government agency. Unfortunately, efforts to rate the effectiveness of government departments and programs was discontinued after 2008. the difference in efficiency between government agencies and private enterprises is that ,in plain language,when you screw up in a private agency you go down the road...with just about all gov. jobs you stay in the building... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSUBlizzicane2007 Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 the difference in efficiency between government agencies and private enterprises is that ,in plain language,when you screw up in a private agency you go down the road...with just about all gov. jobs you stay in the building... Have you ever actually worked for a government agency, or are you just going off spoonfed propaganda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
k*** Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 when you screw up in a private agency you go down the road...with just about all gov. jobs you stay in the building... If that were true then why hasn't accuweather gone out of business for forecasting numerous busted EC cane threats? JB said Irene would be a top 3 storm...I wonder if he got a pink slip? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 the difference in efficiency between government agencies and private enterprises is that ,in plain language,when you screw up in a private agency you go down the road...with just about all gov. jobs you stay in the building... You have no clue what you are talking about regarding either the private or public sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ApacheTrout Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 the difference in efficiency between government agencies and private enterprises is that ,in plain language,when you screw up in a private agency you go down the road...with just about all gov. jobs you stay in the building... And that stereotypical platitude just might be the difference that allows great innovations (such as GPS and the Internet) to come to life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clinch Leatherwood Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Like I said, this has been going on since the dawn of meteorology and forecasting. Irene is no different. It has happened in the past and will happen in the future. Even in private weather where we (at my former place of work) dealt directly with the road weather community, they barely had an even basic understanding of weather. We had the same issues there...people perceiving the forecast as a bust. A forecast is not meant to be a "yes/no" indication of an event, hence probabilities and careful wording. With the general public, there is almost NO direct correspondence and "training". In the case of Irene, some caution MUST be taken. People are calling bust as if nothing happened, but NHC rather skillfully forecast the track of Irene as well as discussed the potential impacts/forecast deviations as they always have. Unfortunately the public believes weather information just appears randomly without understanding where it is coming from. The best we can do is disseminate the information to the public. They do with it what they want. Weather events don't kill nearly as many people as they did 50 years ago, and the economic losses are better handled through proper emergency management/disaster mitigation planning and response. People will call "bust" all the time just as they have in the past, but the funny thing is, the general public is luckier than ever to have all this weather information. Deaths related to weather are not common anymore for a reason. You generally seem to have the idea I have been alluding to in the last two posts, but you keep providing information as if I don't know this. You're not the only one reading the thread, there are others that likely didn't see those articles. If Norman OK is issuing most of the severe warnings, and the NHC is issuing most of the hurricane related stuff I can see where some people may justify what is written in that article not understanding it's all part of the same pie. Remember, there were those that proclaimed disaster when ASOS was rolled out too. Personally I think accurate weather information is critical and I think it's critical it comes from the government. Standard warnings for severe, floods, hurricanes from one central point. I hope that never changes. I just get so tired of it being a political issue over and over again. That accomplishes nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Next person who spews political hate in this thread/forum will be 5 posted. This isn't PR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Marusak Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 the difference in efficiency between government agencies and private enterprises is that ,in plain language,when you screw up in a private agency you go down the road...with just about all gov. jobs you stay in the building... i have worked in the private sector mainly, but i do know people who work in the public sector. and let's put it this way; i don't care where you are, you screw up the wrong way and you can't give a good explanation, you're gone. some agencies may be better than others in doing that, but anyone could be fired for a big-enough screw-up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lsukev Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Next person who spews political hate in this thread/forum will be 5 posted. This isn't PR. Excellent post. Politics + weather= not fun Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundersnow12 Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Not necessarily. Most people don't have a clue what it takes to get a meteorology degree, or, for that matter, to produce a weather forecast. So true, and what I'm doing right now. Alot of damn math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 ? it's a 100% political piece written by a lobbyist who heads up a right wing think tank dedicated to denying climate change, pushing for the repeal of the EPA, and publishing fake science (like digoxin is good for you). it's meant to be political, not scientific and it's not even worth refuting. but it is worth noting where it was published and who supports this hackery factory Murray helps run. taking the politics out of it and trying to treat it as a reasoned essay is exactly what they want people to do so their lies can spread more easily. this should be in PR. how can you deny it is not overtly and deliberately political? why treat evenly the opinion of self-serving shrills for those who would destroy useful segments of the US as people who deserve to be treated in a non-biased manner? they have resorted to open lying to get their points across. more about CEI: http://www.sourcewat...prise_Institute Yes I know this. The deleted posts were political hate rants, and they are not welcome in the W/F forum. As you can see, we have had plenty of good disco on it even if it is a "political" op-ed pile of misinformation and agenda driven drivel. I agree though, it is highly politicized, but that wasn't what my post was about. And my gosh, where did I "deny" this was not political in nature. Of course it was, and I certainly do not deny how pathetic this article was. Did you bother reading a single post of mine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clinch Leatherwood Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 ? it's a 100% political piece written by a lobbyist who heads up a right wing think tank dedicated to denying climate change, pushing for the repeal of the EPA, and publishing fake science (like digoxin is good for you). it's meant to be political, not scientific and it's not even worth refuting. but it is worth noting where it was published and who supports this hackery factory Murray helps run. taking the politics out of it and trying to treat it as a reasoned essay is exactly what they want people to do so their lies can spread more easily. this should be in PR. how can you deny it is not overtly and deliberately political? why treat evenly the opinion of self-serving shrills for those who would destroy useful segments of the US as people who deserve to be treated in a non-biased manner? they have resorted to open lying to get their points across. more about CEI: http://www.sourcewat...prise_Institute I 100% agree with what you said. I hate to see these things cross into the weather forums, that should have been over in PR. It always ends up becoming political. That said it has as much chance of happening as more moon missions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 I 100% agree with what you said. I hate to see these things cross into the weather forums, that should have been over in PR. It always ends up becoming political. That said it has as much chance of happening as more moon missions. If you guys want it in PR, feel free to start a new discussion there. There is more than enough weather related discussion on here for it to stay here though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quixotic1 Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 The NWS is good at what it does, with seemingly little hype and drama. If must be tough for a met to remain neutral when a potentially historic weather event is in the making. There's little doubt in my mind that with money at stake, objectivity and method would take a back seat to numbers and sensationalism. FWIW, it's almost certain that Fox is aware that piece is nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bozart Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 I hate to see these things cross into the weather forums, that should have been over in PR. It always ends up becoming political. No, it doesn't "end up becoming political." As Trixie pointed out, it started political. It was meant to be political. It is by its origin, motive, and nature, nothing but a political hit piece through and through, devoid of rhyme or reason, vying for unearned respectability, which too many are willing to cede it. We know where it came from, what their interests are, and who is only too happy to propagate it. If one single, solitary member of a weather board should deign to "see the point" behind dismantling the finest Weather Service in the world (just about the last federal agency that does its job superbly on a shoestring), that is nothing short of appalling. That's the kind of thing over which people on a leading weather board should be 5-posted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baroclinic_instability Posted August 30, 2011 Share Posted August 30, 2011 No, it doesn't "end up becoming political." As Trixie pointed out, it started political. It was meant to be political. It is by its origin, motive, and nature, nothing but a political hit piece through and through, devoid of rhyme or reason, vying for unearned respectability, which too many are willing to cede it. We know where it came from, what their interests are, and who is only too happy to propagate it. If one single, solitary member of a weather board should deign to "see the point" behind dismantling the finest Weather Service in the world (just about the last federal agency that does its job superbly on a shoestring), that is nothing short of appalling. That's the kind of thing over which people on a leading weather board should be 5-posted. Yes it is political, goodness sakes you guys just need to stop. It is also weather related, and people should not need to wade through pages and pages of you guys in PR flinging political attacks at one another to actually read about the weather related posts. Hence why this is not in PR, and it is why you can't post the crap you did in your previous post (now deleted). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SN_Lover Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 It looks like Foxnews has disabled commented to this article....probably from all the bad feedback it's getting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
North Balti Zen Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 No, it doesn't "end up becoming political." As Trixie pointed out, it started political. It was meant to be political. It is by its origin, motive, and nature, nothing but a political hit piece through and through, devoid of rhyme or reason, vying for unearned respectability, which too many are willing to cede it. We know where it came from, what their interests are, and who is only too happy to propagate it. If one single, solitary member of a weather board should deign to "see the point" behind dismantling the finest Weather Service in the world (just about the last federal agency that does its job superbly on a shoestring), that is nothing short of appalling. That's the kind of thing over which people on a leading weather board should be 5-posted. Applause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
isohume Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 The NWS is good at what it does, with seemingly little hype and drama. If must be tough for a met to remain neutral when a potentially historic weather event is in the making. There's little doubt in my mind that with money at stake, objectivity and method would take a back seat to numbers and sensationalism. FWIW, it's almost certain that Fox is aware that piece is nonsense. Actually it's not. It's inefficient and more exasperating to add needless drama to a specific forecast. Remaining objective is not limiting yourself to a personal bias. I like it that way...very clean and detached. There are some NWS forecasters I know who get more emotionally charged than I do...but I've never seen it affect their overall objectivity when issuing what they believe is most likely to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike2010 Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I've barely read any of the responses here so far, but this article is very easy to summarize : Fox News Channel = 90% pro-republican , 90% pro-corporation , 90% anti-government. (unless a Republican is president...then all of a sudden they love the govt. again) Lets face it, their in their own little la-la-land world with their biased reporting. Finally after all these years, Americans are waking up and realizing how phoney they really are. Fake News Channel is more like it. and lol @ O'reilly and his phoney / fake smiles and reporting. This guy is as paid off as it gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MGorse Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I do believe that the NWS and the private sector can and should exist together. Interestingly enough, I really have not seen any mention that the NWS has been around much much longer than the private sector and back then it was known as the U.S. Weather Bureau (until 1970 when it was renamed the NWS). I have heard some in the private sector complain that the NWS crosses the line at times and issues products that compete with them. I do not think that is truly the case, however I have seen some forecast products in the private sector which can be viewed as competition with the NWS. The NWS does not compete with the private sector! I worked in the media, private sector and the government, so I have seen it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.