Joe Bastardi, "Fish" and The Media

[Duffy]

yep i agree

[arcticfire]

It's terrible when people suffer but I have to agree with most of the original posters points.

I live in Alaska myself. We don't have to worry about sever weather , well untill recent years (thunder clap shook our houses last summer shocked the hell out of us). However what we do get , frequintly is earthquakes. I'm sure everyone knows about the 1964 earthquake up here.

Earthquakes small and moderate have happened threwout my life. Someday another large earthquake is going to tear apart this city (anchorage). When that happens it will be awfull. However you won't see people up here going "garsh I can't belive an earthquake tore my house apart". It's a danger that we live with and accept.

I have very little sympathy for people who live in places that get hit by hurricanes , especially the places that get hit frequintly. It's a danger you accept by living there. I have far and away a ton more sympathy for resedents of the islands in the tropics. Jamaica, Cuba etc. Those people have no where to run and largly no option to move out the danger zone.

People living on the GOM coast always have the option to move furthur inland. If you want the tropical life you take the good with the bad. If you can't tolerate the idea of losing everything to a common act of nature in your area ... move.

[Duffy]

yeah

[x-y-no]

Well x-y-n0 your post perfectly describes the attitude of non- private weather services. You dang right I pay tax dollars for those satelliites, etc, so it should also be my right to choose who analysis them. Be it private or gov. Also J.B. does give Long./lat. criteria. Go read his 7/08/ post.

I don't understand what you're saying ... you think I'm a "non-private weather service?"

Anyway, I have no problem at all with absolutely anyone analyzing weather data. Quite the opposite. What I object to is the big private weather services trying to seize control of all that data - locking out the little guy who currently gets his data from the end-user style NWS presentations. Read the bill Accuweather is pushing honestly and you'll see that's exactly what it does.

As for JB giving specific forecasts of Lt/Long speed direction and intensity - I never saw it in the three years I was reading his column. Why don't you post what his forecasts were for Dennis? Just a few examples ... What was his 24 hour forecast on each of Thursday, Friday and Saturday mornings and evenings, for instance?

Jan

[The Big Dog]

Earthquakes small and moderate have happened threwout my life. Someday another large earthquake is going to tear apart this city (anchorage). When that happens it will be awfull. However you won't see people up here going "garsh I can't belive an earthquake tore my house apart". It's a danger that we live with and accept.

I have very little sympathy for people who live in places that get hit by hurricanes , especially the places that get hit frequintly. It's a danger you accept by living there. I have far and away a ton more sympathy for resedents of the islands in the tropics. Jamaica, Cuba etc. Those people have no where to run and largly no option to move out the danger zone.

People living on the GOM coast always have the option to move furthur inland. If you want the tropical life you take the good with the bad. If you can't tolerate the idea of losing everything to a common act of nature in your area ... move.

Well, by that logic, I should have little sympathy for you the next time a 9-point earthquake rumbles through Anchorage. However, I will have sympathy because that's just the kind of sap I am. And yes, there will be plenty of people in disbelief saying "garsh I can't belive an earthquake tore my house apart" since it's been 41 years.

Go read BocaGirl's post on the previous page. People don't necessarily choose where they live for the atmosphere and warm winters and blah blah blah. We live in places for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with any of that. Personally, I could care less about the beach, but I work here, have a home here, family and friends here, etc. This is my home, and while I don't like the risk level, I do accept it.

[Blown Away]

I've been hooked on Canes for along time, but I went through 2 canes last year and no power for more than 25 days total. With 3 little kids, not allot of $, and damage to the house that has not been repaired, I can honestly say I don't want a storm. I will admit, the pre storm excitement and the awesome winds are addicting, but most of all walking out into the eye w/ dead calm clear skies after experiencing @100 mph winds was awesome, and then doing it again 2 weeks later was enough for me for many years. To those who are getting ready I have some experience advice:
1. Register for FEMA ASAP after the storm (save food, gas, Home Depot, etc. receipts)
2. Take all your 2 liter/ milk jugs fill w/ water and freeze.
3. If your staying, at the storm's height don't let people eat,
you don't want people to choke (they can wait a few hours).
Especially kids, maybe overreacting but I was concerned!
4. Cell phones likely won't work in the hardest hit areas
5. Get numerous chlorine jugs for pool, the pool was our salvation after the storm.
6. Talk to your kids, they are scared even if they don't show it.
Good luck, I'm praying for dry air!!!

[lapeym]

New Orleans is where it is because of the river and the port. Historically it was strategically placed to move goods from the US to foreign ports and vice versa, and allowed much of the growth this country experienced. Iberville didn't float down the city and say, "Gee, what a lovely swamp. Let's build a vacation house here!"
Houston is where it is because it is a port city. Also much a dump.
Mobile is where it is because it is a port city.
Same with virtually all large cities on our coasts.

These are where the jobs are. And the odds of a IV/V hurricane hitting any city any year are slim, otherwise NO, Houston, Mobile, Miami and so on would be ghost towns. NO hasn't seen a major since 1965, and that was a III. Tampa even longer. Even Miami doesn't get hit by major hurricanes as much as people insinuate.

[The Big Dog]

"Gee, what a lovely swamp. Let's build a vacation house here!"

[arcticfire]

Earthquakes small and moderate have happened threwout my life. Someday another large earthquake is going to tear apart this city (anchorage). When that happens it will be awfull. However you won't see people up here going "garsh I can't belive an earthquake tore my house apart". It's a danger that we live with and accept.

I have very little sympathy for people who live in places that get hit by hurricanes , especially the places that get hit frequintly. It's a danger you accept by living there. I have far and away a ton more sympathy for resedents of the islands in the tropics. Jamaica, Cuba etc. Those people have no where to run and largly no option to move out the danger zone.

People living on the GOM coast always have the option to move furthur inland. If you want the tropical life you take the good with the bad. If you can't tolerate the idea of losing everything to a common act of nature in your area ... move.

Well, by that logic, I should have little sympathy for you the next time a 9-point earthquake rumbles through Anchorage. However, I will have sympathy because that's just the kind of sap I am. And yes, there will be plenty of people in disbelief saying "garsh I can't belive an earthquake tore my house apart" since it's been 41 years.

Go read BocaGirl's post on the previous page. People don't necessarily choose where they live for the atmosphere and warm winters and blah blah blah. We live in places for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with any of that. Personally, I could care less about the beach, but I work here, have a home here, family and friends here, etc. This is my home, and while I don't like the risk level, I do accept it.

I understand reason for being in a place are not simply for the beach. My point is if you truly cannot handle the natural effects of your area you should move. Jobs , friends etc can all be replaced elsewhere.

No one here is casting a blind eye to people suffering. However at the same time people should not be chastised because they like to watch the destructive force of a hurricane. There is a reason TWC and such send reporters into the paths of these things , it's because many many people are deeply facinated with watching the raw power of them as they tear things apart on camera.

[LSU2001]

"Gee, what a lovely swamp. Let's build a vacation house here!"

Hey Watch it now I OWN a vacation house in the swamp

[amawea]

x-y-no, You have it backwards. the bill, if we are speaking of the same one wants to keep all the weather data from getting into private sectors. Folks like you and me! I'll not give you the data that Joe has put out, but I specifacly read on one of his post either yesterday or the day before where he put down the latitudes of where he thought Dennis is going in. I've nothing more to say to you. It's became a battle as to J.B's integrety. I have weather to tend to. If you want the specifics. read his site.
Amawea

[The Big Dog]

Earthquakes small and moderate have happened threwout my life. Someday another large earthquake is going to tear apart this city (anchorage). When that happens it will be awfull. However you won't see people up here going "garsh I can't belive an earthquake tore my house apart". It's a danger that we live with and accept.

I have very little sympathy for people who live in places that get hit by hurricanes , especially the places that get hit frequintly. It's a danger you accept by living there. I have far and away a ton more sympathy for resedents of the islands in the tropics. Jamaica, Cuba etc. Those people have no where to run and largly no option to move out the danger zone.

People living on the GOM coast always have the option to move furthur inland. If you want the tropical life you take the good with the bad. If you can't tolerate the idea of losing everything to a common act of nature in your area ... move.

Well, by that logic, I should have little sympathy for you the next time a 9-point earthquake rumbles through Anchorage. However, I will have sympathy because that's just the kind of sap I am. And yes, there will be plenty of people in disbelief saying "garsh I can't belive an earthquake tore my house apart" since it's been 41 years.

Go read BocaGirl's post on the previous page. People don't necessarily choose where they live for the atmosphere and warm winters and blah blah blah. We live in places for lots of reasons that have nothing to do with any of that. Personally, I could care less about the beach, but I work here, have a home here, family and friends here, etc. This is my home, and while I don't like the risk level, I do accept it.

I understand reason for being in a place are not simply for the beach. My point is if you truly cannot handle the natural effects of your area you should move. Jobs , friends etc can all be replaced elsewhere.

No one here is casting a blind eye to people suffering. However at the same time people should not be chastised because they like to watch the destructive force of a hurricane. There is a reason TWC and such send reporters into the paths of these things , it's because many many people are deeply facinated with watching the raw power of them as they tear things apart on camera.

Yeah, and you lose that attitude after you go through one personally. There's a difference between admiring the force of such a storm and getting some kind of enjoyment out of seeing people's homes destroyed. I, for one, will not stand next to someone's flattened home or business and say "wow, that is so cool!" Did you actually experience the '64 quake?

[x-y-no]

x-y-no, You have it backwards. the bill, if we are speaking of the same one wants to keep all the weather data from getting into private sectors. Folks like you and me! I'll not give you the data that Joe has put out, but I specifacly read on one of his post either yesterday or the day before where he put down the latitudes of where he thought Dennis is going in. I've nothing more to say to you. It's became a battle as to J.B's integrety. I have weather to tend to. If you want the specifics. read his site.
Amawea

No, I don't have it backwads. I've read the bill very carefully. I've read the parts of the US code which it modifies very carefully. We've discussed it extensively on this board. I know what Rick Santorum and the Accuweather management claim it does, and I know that they're lying when they claim that. I'll be happy to explain in great detail why the provisions that NWS data be provided "in bulk form" combined with the fact that another section forbids the NWS from providing any product which private providers are "willing" to provide for a fee amounts to severely reducing the data NWS may supply in user-friendly form some later time when we have a lull in tropical activity. I really don't want to waste the time going through it all for the Nth time while we've got Dennis bearing down on the coast. Suffice it to say if you believe what the proponents of this bill are claiming it does, you've bought into a pack of lies.

Regarding the rest, you can't give me his 24 hour forcasts for those days because he doesn't make real forecasts of storm tracks. Naming a possible landfall point once in a rare while is not forecasting.

Jan

EDIT to add: And once again, I'm never going to read his site unless it goes back to being free, because I refuse to give a penny to that corporation.

[Downdraft]

Spoken like a person that has never endured the misery of one of these storms. If every single one of them stayed out at sea myself and thousands of others would all be happy campers.

[amawea]

x-y-no said "Regarding the rest, you can't give me his 24 hour forcasts for those days because he doesn't make real forecasts of storm tracks. Naming a possible landfall point once in a rare while is not forecasting"

That's a laugher, he does that everyday. Just read his post. If you don't subscribe and can't read his post, you have no basis for your accusations.
I'll take up the congressional bill with you later. Accuweather did'n't introduce that bill. a congressman did, on behalf of NOAA.
Amawea

[The Big Dog]

Accuweather did'n't introduce that bill. a congressman did, on behalf of NOAA.
Amawea

A congressman who took contributions from Accuweather, although I'm sure that had nothing to do with it. </sarcasm>

We've beaten that dead horse enough.

[x-y-no]

x-y-no said "Regarding the rest, you can't give me his 24 hour forcasts for those days because he doesn't make real forecasts of storm tracks. Naming a possible landfall point once in a rare while is not forecasting"

That's a laugher, he does that everyday. Just read his post. If you don't subscribe and can't read his post, you have no basis for your accusations.
I'll take up the congressional bill with you later. Accuweather did'n't introduce that bill. a congressman did, on behalf of NOAA.
Amawea

I read his column on a daily basis for years, first when it was on the free site, then as a beta-tester of the pro site, and then for a year and a half as a subscriber to the pro site. I never, ever, saw him give a genuine forecast with verifiable track points at specific time intervals like NHC does. If he's doing that now, it ought to be simplicity itself for you to supply the representative forecast points I asked you for. Over the last three days, what was his 24 hour prediction of Dennis's position and intensity each morning?

And speaking of laughers ... You're claiming that Santorum introduced that bill on behalf of NOAA?

You are so completely wrong it's quite incredible. This bill is an attack on NOAA. Absolutely everyone at NOAA I've ever spoken to about it is vehemently opposed. Every singe one.

Jan

[amawea]

Man Big Dog, all they want is access to the data. They are trying to make it to where there is no threat of it being taken away from all of us as we have it now. Why would there be a bill if it were to remain as is. That's all they want. Free data. Thats what we have now.
amawea

[Air Force Met]

x-y-no said "Regarding the rest, you can't give me his 24 hour forcasts for those days because he doesn't make real forecasts of storm tracks. Naming a possible landfall point once in a rare while is not forecasting"

That's a laugher, he does that everyday. Just read his post. If you don't subscribe and can't read his post, you have no basis for your accusations.
I'll take up the congressional bill with you later. Accuweather did'n't introduce that bill. a congressman did, on behalf of NOAA.
Amawea

1st...no JB does not give exact positions every time...but he does occasionally like a bench mark. He does give exact landfall points...but he does not give "in 24 hours it will be at xx.x and yy.y...etc" all the time. He does, however, mention it sometimes as he lays out his track.

As far as the bill goes...if we are talking about 786...that is absolutely false. A congressman did not introduce this bill on behalf of NOAA. Santorum introduced the bill and it seeks to get data into the private sector...not the other way around.

Sec 2.c.(1) IN GENERAL- All data, information, guidance, forecasts, and warnings received, collected, created, or prepared by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the National Weather Service shall, to the maximum extent practicable, be issued in real time, and without delay for internal use, <b>in a manner that ensures that all members of the public have the opportunity for simultaneous and equal access to such data, information, guidance, forecasts, and warnings.</b>

If you are speaking of another bill...please give the number. If you are talking about 786...you are mistaken of the intent...and have it totally backwards. Accuweather is spinning the bill and they are lying through their teeth. I got the email from them and returned it with some anger. NOAA is not trying to limit the data...it was accuweather's devious way of trying to get support for the bill.

[x-y-no]

Man Big Dog, all they want is access to the data. They are trying to make it to where there is no threat of it being taken away from all of us as we have it now. Why would there be a bill if it were to remain as is. That's all they want. Free data. Thats what we have now.
amawea

No. They want free access to data "in bulk form", and they want to restrain NWS from providing any products to the public which any private provider is "willing" to provide for a fee.

You're representation of what the bill does is absolutely false.

Jan