<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div style="font-style: italic;"><strong>Congress has killed the National Climate Service, <a href="http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/C7I8XW/72E56R/746JDO/UIKQX0/605H6/28/h" target="_blank">reports</a> Brian Vastag:</strong>
"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 <a href="http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/C7I8XW/72E56R/746JDO/UIKQX0/VP8S3/28/h" target="_blank">National Climate Service</a>
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 <a href="http://link.email.washingtonpost.com/r/C7I8XW/72E56R/746JDO/UIKQX0/1B2PB/28/h" target="_blank">Jane Lubchenco</a>
told Congress earlier this year. Farmers are wondering when to plant.
Urban planners want to know whether groundwater will stop flowing under
subdivisions."</div><div>http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/congress-nixes-national-climate-service/2011/11/18/gIQAxYvIgN_story.html?hpid=z4&wpisrc=nl_wonk</div><div><br></div><div>Note: the service was first proposed by the George W. Bush administration. More:</div><div><br></div><div style="font-style: italic;">The proposal has drawn wide-ranging support. NOAA’s administrator from 2001 to 2008 under Bush, <a href="http://www.noaa.gov/lautenbacher.html">Conrad C. Lautenbacher</a>, urged Congress to approve it this year. So did scientific, weather and industry groups, including the <a href="http://www.reinsurance.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1">Reinsurance Association of America</a>, which represents huge firms that backstop home, car and life insurance companies. </div><div style="font-style: italic;">Franklin
W. Nutter, president of the RAA, said insurance companies are
increasingly relying on the predictions of a changing future that NOAA
provides. “It’s become clear that historic patterns of natural
catastrophes — hurricanes, tornadoes, floods — are not good predictors
of future risks,” he said. In other words, the future’s looking rougher...</div><div style="font-style: italic;"><br></div><div style="font-style: italic;">...After the deal, which passed Congress last week, a House
Appropriations Committee news release implied that Congress had saved
$322 million in fiscal year 2012 by nixing the climate service. </div><div style="font-style: italic;">The
reality: Congress is still giving NOAA those funds for climate research
and data delivery. But they’ll be distributed across the agency instead
of consolidated under an umbrella climate service. The hundreds of
millions in savings trumpeted by the Republican-led Appropriations
Committee are an illusion. </div><div><br></div><div>Ron Force<br>Moscow Idaho USA</div></div></body></html>