CWSA's Charges Against NWS: Still No Credible Substantiation

[donsutherland1]

CWSA's "FreetheWeather.com" website charges with regard to the NOAA's and NWS' release of weather information, "in the past, these agencies have sometimes refused to do so."

One can search the entire site. There is no credible or specific documentation for that allegation. For that matter, one can also go to the parent organization, CWSA's site. Similar charges. No documentation.

To date, CWSA has held to these allegations but has not furnished any credible evidence that the NWS has deliberately refused to provide data on occasion. Why not?

In seeking to influence public opinion, it is easier to make severe charges. It's far more difficult to try to prove them. The public should not be swayed.

Such a frivolous approach would never succeed in a court of law. Therefore, I doubt that the general public will be persuaded by allegations so long as no credible or specific evidence is provided. Yet, the charges remain on the websites and not a single apology has been issued to those tainted by the charges.

Perhaps this is a problem that results from an inherent shortcoming on the CWSA's website and those of its subsidiary causes. Curiously, on closer inspection of both CWSA's S.786 site and CWSA's site, there is no code of ethics on either site. There are unsubstantiated allegations made toward the NWS, especially on the "Freetheweather.com" website. What kind of signal does this send? That the ends justify the means and all means are fair game, even the leveling of unfair and undocumented charges?

Make no mistake, I belive the overwhelming majority of CWSA's members are highly ethical and professional. Unfortunately, where the problem seems to occur is that the absence of such a Code may well have led to the absence of a key barrier to the kind of wild and unsubstantiated charges that presently appear on the "FreetheWeather.com" website. That does not reflect well on CWSA nor its membership. In fact, with the negative perceptions it breeds, it's a real disservice to the membership.

In the end, I believe most reasonable people who examine the issue of S.786--the allegations being made, the lack of evidence for those allegations, the material omission of the bill's key provision concerning the mode of issuance of the data-- can reasonably conclude that "FreetheWeather.com" cannot be relied upon for an impartial interpretation of the legislation. The effort by its proponents to mask the bill as serving the public interest is failing. It is doomed. It cannot succeed so long as its language is exposed to scrutiny.

CWSA should reconsider its position on the bill, and especially the accusations it levels at NWS. It should retract them immediately, apologize to the NWS for having made them, and refrain from making such charges in the future. In doing so, it would provide far better service to its members and it would help assure that the invaluable public-private partnership remains strong and effective. Without that partnership, the entire weather community--public and private--would suffer irreparable harm and the public welfare would be injured as a consequence.

[Huckster]

CWSA should reconsider its position on the bill, and especially the accusations it levels at NWS. It should retract them immediately, apologize to the NWS for having made them, and refrain from making such charges in the future. In doing so, it would provide far better service to its members and it would help assure that the invaluable public-private partnership remains strong and effective. Without that partnership, the entire weather community--public and private--would suffer irreparable harm and the public welfare would be injured as a consequence.

It is amazing how shortsighted greed so consumes some people. This is going to come back and bite them in the ***. Thanks for keeping us up to date on this issue.