I appreciate your thoughts on our article and, working with Canadians, do know that the weather is as, if not more, important up North than down here in the US. As lead author on the paper I would like to correct a few notes in David’s blog on our article . . . “it's a study by weather forecasters” – please note that none of us are weather forecasters. I am an economist and Rebecca Morss and Julie Demuth have degrees in meteorology but are not forecasters. “and isn't getting the public funding it deserves.” We don’t make any arguments with respect to funding levels. We note simply that the benefits appear to be significantly greater than the costs for the entire US weather enterprise (this includes all private sector costs as well) and make no indication of any need for additional funding. In fact, the study is about the value of current forecasts and not the potential value of improved forecasts and thus is not about justifying funding needs. “Though NCAR, a U.S. government agency” – technically NCAR is not a U.S. government agency. We are funded largely through the National Science Foundation and are not government employees. “Lazo argues that he and other weather experts are not getting the kind of resources that their importance in the lives of Americans might deserve.” Again - we did not try to argue that at all! And again, I have to say I would in no way claim to be a weather expert. “…then he asked them how much they'd pay, if they had to, for each forecast. Answer to the last one -- about a dime.” We didn’t ask them how much they’d pay. We asked them if they thought what they were paying was worth it to them – giving them a range of costs – and from that extrapolated a median value to a US household of $286 a year. We divided this $286 by the number of forecasts they received to come up with the $0.10 a forecast (not the other way round). So – thanks for noting our article. Feel free to let me know if you’d like a copy of the article as it covers much of the nitty-gritty of the research that, without having read the article, may have led to some of the above confusion.