The following is the verbatim article…

Do We Really Need a National Weather Service?

By Iain Murray  and David Bier — Published August 27, 2011 | FoxNews.com

As Hurricane Irene bears down on the East Coast, news stations bombard our televisions with constant updates from the National Hurricane Center.

While Americans ought to prepare for the coming storm, federal dollars need not subsidize their preparations. Although it might sound outrageous, the truth is that the National Hurricane Center and its parent agency, the National Weather Service, are relics from America’s past that have actually outlived their usefulness.

The National Weather Service (NWS) was founded in 1870. Originally, the NWS was not a public information agency. It was a national security agency and placed under the Department of War. The Service’s national security function has long since disappeared, but as agencies often do, however, it stuck around and managed to increase its budget.

Today the NWS justifies itself on public interest grounds. It issues severe weather advisories and hijacks local radio and television stations to get the message out. It presumes that citizens do not pay attention to the weather and so it must force important, perhaps lifesaving, information upon them. A few seconds’ thought reveals how silly this is. The weather might be the subject people care most about on a daily basis. There is a very successful private TV channel dedicated to it, 24 hours a day, as well as any number of phone and PC apps. Americans need not be forced to turn over part of their earnings to support weather reporting.

The NWS claims that it supports industries like aviation and shipping, but if they provide a valuable contribution to business, it stands to reason business would willingly support their services. If that is the case, the Service is just corporate welfare. If they would not, it is just a waste.

As for hurricanes, the insurance industry has a compelling interest in understanding them. In a world without a National Weather Service, the insurance industry would probably have sponsored something very like the National Hurricane Center at one or more universities. Those replacements would also not be exploited for political purposes.

As it stands today, the public is forced to pay more than $1 billion per year for the NWS.  With the federal deficit exceeding a trillion dollars, the NWS is easily overlooked, but it shouldn’t be. It may actually be dangerous.

Relying on inaccurate government reports can endanger lives. Last year the Service failed to predict major flooding in Nashville because it miscalculated the rate at which water was releasing from dams there. The NWS continued to rely on bad information, even after forecasters knew the data were inaccurate. The flooding resulted in 22 deaths.

Private weather services do exist, and unsurprisingly, they are better than the NWS. When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, the National Weather Service was twelve hours behind AccuWeather in predicting that New Orleans would be affected. Unlike the NWS, AccuWeather provides precise hour-by-hour storm predictions, one of the reasons private industry supports them.

It is not just random mistakes in crises either. Forecast Watch has found that the National Weather Service predictions of snow and rain have an error rate 20 percent higher than their private alternatives. “All private forecasting companies did much better than the National Weather Service,” their report concludes. In 2008, they found that the NWS’s temperature predictions were worse than every private-sector competitor including the Weather Channel, Intellicast, and Weather Underground. Even NWS’s online ZIP code search for weather reports is in some cases totally inaccurate, giving reports for areas hundreds of miles away.

NWS claims to spread information, but when the topic of budget cuts came up earlier this year, all they spread was fear. “There is a very heightened risk for loss of life if these cuts go through,” NWS forecasters said, “The inability for warnings to be disseminated to the public, whether due to staffing inadequacies, radar maintenance problems or weather radio transmitter difficulties, would be disastrous.”

Disastrous? The $126 million in cuts would still have left the Service with a larger budget than it had a decade ago. The massive bloat in government should not get a pass just because it’s wrapped in good-of-the-community clothing. NWS services can and are better provided by the private sector. Americans will invest in weather forecasting because if there is one thing we can be certain of, people will want to protect their property and their lives.

Iain Murray is Vice President at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and author of “Stealing You Blind: How Government Fatcats Are Getting Rich Off of You.” David Bier is a Research Associate at CEI.

Update 28-August: Updated introduction, added context.

Like any hook, such as sports or popular culture, military and national security themes broaden an audience for outreach. There are over 3.6M military personnel in the U.S., 1.9M spouses & kids of active duty members, and over 22M veterans, who also have families. (Stats on personnel & families, and veterans.)

There are several initiatives which are bridging the military world with the sciences and culture…

A winnable battle

Most Americans like science & art. A 2009 Pew study found that overwhelming majorities of Americans feel that science has had a positive effect on society and that research has made life easier for most people. Americans also like arts and culture. They are keen on music and visual arts, and many like culture and dance. (See our blog post about involvement in arts & culture.)

Despite this broad seed of interest, there are ideological differences, particularly when it comes to money. Among the general public, Democrats are more interested in funding the arts and sciences, and Republicans are more interested in military. (According to Jan 2011 Gallup poll; Pew stats on science funding from 2009 are similar.) Here’s the Gallup data:

Bridging the waters

Last year, amidst ongoing ideological debates about climate change and government funding of the arts, two unexpected voices testified before Congress.

In support of the sciences, Rear Admiral Titley testified on 27-July-2010 before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, explaining that the Navy is closely watching effects of changing climate on sea ice in the Arctic, saying that “the changing Arctic has national security implications for the Navy.” (See also PDF)

In support of the arts, retired Army Brigadier General Nolen Bivens testified on 13-April-2010 to the a House appropriations subcommittee, to raise the budget for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Bivens testified that “support for the arts and culture can improve our [country’s] national security needs.”

These military voices command the respect and attention of the military-oriented public, and carry authority because the military is considered a neutral voice.

The opposition bluffs

There are ideological differences, but politicians can make the differences look larger than then are. For example, in the sciences, House Republicans cut Obama’s budget recommendations in science and art (see graph at Nature). And in the arts, in January 2011, a group of 165 House Republicans, proposed to cut federal funding for arts, eliminating funds for NEA and NEH, and public broadcasting, as well a other liberal policies like public transportation.

When looking at budget discussions, it’s important to maintain some perspective: In terms of the Federal budget, the funds assigned to defense are colossal. The Federal budget for defense ($691B in FY2010) is five-times the sciences’ ($137B in 2010) and dwarfs the National Endowments for the Arts’ (NEA) and and the National Endowments for Humanities’ (NEH) ($0.34B in 2010).

Moreover, politicians bring a lot of bluster into the budget debate. According to Stanley Katz, director of the Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies at Princeton, “despite the rhetoric of the cultural wars [of the 1990’s], not much actually happened to influence public opinion against the arts.” He continues that the current debates are “more ideological window dressing than anything else.”

When it comes to controversial science topics like climate change, ideology does play a larger role. Regarding climate change, one in five Americans are doubtful or actively dismissive about global warming — and nearly all of the people with extreme views on the validity of climate change science are conservative Republicans. (See “Six Americas” PDF). This is where Rear Admiral Titley’s testimony and outreach is so vital.

Science & art outreach

In the sciences, there is a popular blog (290 posts, 600k visitors in 2010), Armed with Science, run by DoD which often features blog posts by scientists and various military departments. For climate change in particular, Rear Admiral Titley directs the Navy’s Task Force Climate Change, TFCC (see their charter, PDF). TFCC maintains a Facebook page liked by 605 people, and Titley gives a variety of public speeches which raise attention in the press and among bloggers.

In the arts, General Bivens feels there is a lot of untapped potential. He emphasizes that the vast majority of people in the military respect the arts and culture, and appreciate the importance of cultural diplomacy to America’s long term security. He suggests arts outreach projects focused on cultural diplomacy in foreign countries, trainings for military personnel, and services to veterans and military families. For families, one example is the Blue Star Museums project (joint between NEA and Blue Star Families, a support organization for military families), which gives free museum admission to military families in the summer. NEA chairman Rocco Landesman wrote in Feb 2011, that a quarter of a million military families visited one of the 920 Blue Star Museums over summer 2010.

Upcoming blog posts will look at these programs in more detail. If you know about more projects, please list them in the comments.