Welcome back everybody to Meteorology Matters.
We like to get into all kinds of cool weather topics,
but this one today is,
I don't even know how to describe this one.
It's a-
Really, it's something else.
Yeah, kind of a strange intersection
between politics and technology and meteorology.
Absolutely.
But if you want to stay up to date on all things weather,
you can follow meteorologist Rob Jones on Instagram
at meteorologist on TikTok, at TV meteorologist,
and on YouTube at Rob Jones' hurricane.
You can also find the Meteorology Matters playlist
there as well.
Very good.
So NOAA, that's the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.
Right.
Got slammed with a bunch of weird emails.
Right.
So imagine, you know, thousands of NOAA employees.
Right.
You know, people who are tracking hurricanes
and studying climate change.
Of course.
They open up their inboxes.
Yeah, what's waiting for them.
The interesting thing is to say the least.
Yeah, I think what's interesting here is how
this really kind of exposes the changes
that the Trump administration made to the federal communication
systems.
They put in this new system that allowed anyone to email
all 2.3 million federal employees from one address.
Wait, so you're telling me that anybody could just send out
a mass email to the entire federal workforce.
Yeah.
That's got to be some kind of security nightmare.
Yeah, you would definitely be right to be concerned.
And in fact, some employees, they initially just
thought that these emails were just spam, you know?
Right.
But it quickly became clear that, you know,
this new system was vulnerable to misuse.
And there was actually this journalist, Ken Klippenstein,
who actually was able to send his newsletter
to all 13,000 NOAA employees.
So he just blasted his newsletter to everybody at NOAA.
That's pretty serious security breach.
Yeah.
Seems like maybe the Trump administration kind of overlooked
some pretty crucial security measures here.
Yeah, it definitely raises some questions about their approach
to cybersecurity for sure.
And the content of some of these emails to NOAA employees
were pretty alarming.
Some were like urging employees to resign,
a lot of inappropriate language, even promoting things
like Scientology subscriptions.
Scientology subscriptions.
That's a new one.
Sounds like somebody was having a little too much
fun with their access to the entire federal workforce.
But this wasn't like a one-off thing, was it?
No, you're right.
This incident at NOAA is kind of part of a larger pattern
that we've seen where these internal federal emails have
been gaining attention, especially since the start
of the Trump administration, especially these emails related
to deferred resignation.
Deferred resignation.
What is that?
It's basically a way for federal employees
to kind of signal that they plan to leave their position,
but they're going to delay their actual departure.
And it's become interesting because a lot of these emails,
which were meant to be internal, of course,
have been leaked or shared publicly.
So it gives us a glimpse into kind of what
was happening within the government under the Trump
administration.
So you've got this new email system, which is basically
a free-for-all.
And then on top of that, you've got these government employees
sending out these deferred resignation emails,
which are then sometimes getting leaked to the public.
It paints a pretty chaotic picture of what's happening.
It does.
It definitely raises a lot of questions
about security and transparency and what exactly was happening
within the federal government at the time.
But maybe we can shift gears a little bit
and talk about another incident that shed some light
on the Trump administration's approach
to technology and personnel.
Do you remember that story about Elon Musk
in the Office of Personnel Management or OPM?
Oh, yeah, I remember that.
That was a big story.
Wasn't there some kind of controversy there
about Elon Musk and his involvement with the OPM?
Yeah, there was definitely some controversy there.
According to a Wired report, Elon Musk basically
was able to replace a lot of the high-level staff
at the OPM with some younger, less experienced individuals
from his own companies.
So just to be clear, we're talking
to the Office of Personnel Management.
That's the agency that's in charge of managing
the entire federal workforce, including NOAA.
That's a pretty important role, wouldn't you say?
Yeah, absolutely.
And one of the major changes that Musk pushed for
was this new in-house email server for OPM.
But the OPM's chief information officer, Melvin Brown,
the second she resisted this change,
citing security concerns.
Yeah.
And of course, he was fired.
Fired for trying to make sure that sensitive information
was secure.
That's not a good sign.
What happened after that?
Did they actually end up implementing that new server?
They did, despite the concerns, and not long after a class
action lawsuit was filed, alleging that the new server
didn't even meet the most basic cybersecurity standards
that were established back in the Bush era.
Wow, so we've got this vulnerable email system
that we know has already been exploited,
some questionable personnel changes at a key agency.
And a complete disregard for established cybersecurity
practices.
Yeah.
It sounds like a recipe for disaster.
What were the implications of all this,
especially for agencies like NOAA?
Well, one of the biggest concerns
was that this insecure server could
be used to gather information on government employees,
potentially even those working at NOAA.
And this fear was kind of heightened when
these fork in the road memos got sent out.
Wait, those memos were sent from that same unsecured server
at OPM, and what were these fork in the road memos anyway?
That's right.
These memos, they were meant to be internal,
but they accidentally revealed the involvement
of these two individuals who were not government employees.
Oh, wow.
But they were heavily involved in this project called Project
2025.
And this project, as we'll talk about later on,
has some pretty significant implications
for the future of the federal workforce,
including those at NOAA.
So we have these email vulnerabilities, personnel
changes, potential data breaches,
and this mysterious Project 2025 looming in the background.
It sounds like the Trump administration's approach
to technology and personnel really
had a ripple effect across the whole entire federal government,
including the world of meteorology.
You hit it right on the head.
These incidents, when you take them all together,
really suggest a pattern of disregard
for established norms and procedures
with potentially serious consequences
for government agencies like NOAA.
This is definitely a lot to unpack.
It seems like we're just scratching the surface
of this whole thing.
But before we get too deep into the weeds here,
maybe we should take a step back and consider
the broader context.
What do these events tell us about the Trump administration's
efforts to try to reshape the federal workforce, especially
within agencies like NOAA?
That's a great question.
And to really understand the answer,
we have to delve into the details of Project 2025
and its potential impact on the very people who
are responsible for forecasting our weather
and protecting our planet.
And that is where things get really interesting
and a little bit concerning.
Let's take a closer look at what this project is all about
and why it's causing so much controversy, especially
within the scientific community.
Yeah.
It really is amazing how all these seemingly unrelated
events can connect to paint a bigger picture.
We started with strange emails at NOAA.
And now we're talking about cybersecurity
and this mysterious Project 2025.
It's like following a trail of digital breadcrumbs.
Yeah.
You start with something that seems small.
Right.
And it just leads to a much bigger story.
Absolutely.
So let's talk about Project 2025.
What is it?
And what are they trying to accomplish?
So basically, Project 2025 is this initiative
that's being led by these conservative think tanks
and advocacy groups.
OK.
And their goal is to fundamentally reshape
the federal government, especially the civil service.
Reshape the federal government.
That sounds like a pretty big goal.
What does that even mean?
Yeah.
What kind of changes are they talking about?
Well, from what we know, it seems
like they want a much smaller, less powerful federal
government.
They want to make deep cuts to social programs,
scale back environmental regulations,
and even reduce funding for scientific research.
Hold on.
They want to cut funding for NOAA.
Yeah.
The agency that's literally on the front lines
of tracking hurricanes and monitoring climate change
and providing crucial weather data.
Right.
That doesn't seem like a good idea,
especially considering the increasing threats we're
facing from extreme weather.
It might seem counterintuitive, but it
does align with their ideology of shrinking the government's
role in areas that they see as unnecessary or even harmful.
Right.
Project 2025 is really about dismantling or privatizing
a lot of government functions, including those that
have to do with scientific research
and environmental protection.
So it's not just about budget cuts.
No.
It's about completely changing the role of government
when it comes to things like science and environmental
protection.
Yes.
What does that mean for the people who actually work at NOAA?
Well, one of the most concerning things about Project 2025
is their focus on replacing career civil servants
with people who agree with their ideology.
And that could mean sidelining experienced scientists
and researchers and bringing in people who might not
have the right expertise.
So you're saying it's ideology over experience.
Yeah.
That's a scary thought, especially when
we're talking about something as important as weather
forecasting and climate research that could really
hurt the scientific community at NOAA.
Yeah.
That's a valid concern.
If scientists and researchers feel
like their work is being undermined
or their expertise isn't valued, it could really lower morale
and potentially prevent them from doing their jobs
effectively.
And that's not even taking into account the impact
on public safety.
We're having accurate weather forecasting and climate modeling
is essential for protecting lives and property.
Absolutely.
Undermining NOAA's work could have consequences
that reach far beyond the agency itself.
It could affect the whole country.
And it seems like the Trump administration was using Project
2025 as a guide for their actions, especially
those personnel changes at OPM.
And that push for a new email server.
It's all starting to come together now.
The email vulnerabilities, the strange personnel changes.
Let's fork in the road memos and now this Project 2025.
It feels like there was a deliberate effort
to reshape the federal government, including NOAA,
in a way that fits a very specific ideology.
And it seems like they were willing to compromise security
and maybe even jeopardize vital scientific research to do it.
You're putting all the pieces together.
It really makes you wonder about the role of ideology
in shaping government policy and whether prioritizing
political gen-was over scientific expertise
and well-established procedures is a good idea.
It's a sobering thought.
We can't just sit here and worry about it, though, can we?
What can we do to fight back against this?
What can people do to protect NOAA and other government
agencies from these potentially harmful changes?
It's a tough challenge, but there are some things we can do.
The most important thing is to raise awareness
about Project 2025 and its potential impact on the government
and on our lives.
So it's all about educating ourselves and others
about what's going on.
We can't fight something if we don't understand it.
Exactly.
We need to really understand the details of Project 2025.
What are their goals?
What are their methods?
And what could the consequences be?
Once we understand that, then we can start to effectively
counter their influence.
And once we understand it, we can start speaking out
against it, right?
Yes.
Contact our elected officials, talk to our communities
about it, and use our voices to try to make a change.
Exactly.
We need to hold our elected officials accountable.
Yes.
And demand that they protect our government institutions
from these partisan agendas that could make them less effective.
It's about reminding them that these agencies like NELA
are supposed to serve the public.
Yes.
Not a specific political party.
Their focus should be on protecting people, not
advancing political agendas.
Exactly.
And we can also support organizations
that are fighting to protect scientific integrity
and the work that government agencies do.
So donating to organizations that support
science-based policymaking, supporting groups
that are monitoring what the government's doing
and amplifying the voices of scientists and researchers who
are speaking out against these changes.
You got it.
It's about using our collective voice and our resources
to push back against these changes that could be harmful
and protect the institutions that are so important
for our well-being.
Yeah.
And remember, this isn't just about NOAA.
Right.
It's about protecting all federal employees
and making sure our government serves the needs of the people,
not the whims of a particular political party.
It's a fight worth having.
And it reminds us that we as citizens
have a role to play in shaping the future of our government.
We can't just sit back and hope everything turns out OK.
We have to be informed and engaged and active
in defending the institutions that
are vital for our democracy and our future.
So we've been talking about Project 2025
and this whole idea of reshaping the federal government.
But it's not just like a bunch of abstract ideas
where this project actually has a plan for how they want to do it.
Yeah, absolutely.
They have this whole roadmap for how
they want to dismantle or privatize different parts
of the government.
And it's all written out in these policy papers
and strategic documents.
So they're not just taught.
They actually have a plan to make it happen.
That's kind of scary.
Can you give us some examples of what they're actually proposing?
What would a government that's been shaped by this Project
2025 actually look like?
Well, one of the big things is they want to make major cuts
to social programs like Medicare and Social Security.
They say these programs are too expensive and not efficient
enough.
Wait, they want to cut Medicare and Social Security.
Those programs are so important for so many people.
Yeah.
That just seems crazy.
What else are they going after?
They also want to roll back environmental regulations,
you know, the protections that keep our air and water clean.
OK.
They say these regulations are bad for businesses
and that they're based on bad science.
So they're not only going after social safety nets,
but they're also targeting environmental protections.
It feels like they care more about businesses
than they do about people and the planet.
Yeah, I can see why you'd say that.
And what they want to do to NOAA is especially worrying.
They want to slash the agency's budget
and limit what they do.
Basically, they're trying to stop them from monitoring
climate change, predicting extreme weather,
and protecting our oceans.
So they're trying to weaken the very agency that's
supposed to be keeping us safe from climate change.
That just seems so backwards and dangerous,
especially with all the hurricanes and floods
and wildfires that are happening more and more these days.
It's definitely a risky move.
They're basically gambling that we can just
ignore what the scientists are saying
and that climate change won't be as bad as they're predicting.
And what if they're wrong?
What if it's even worse than we think?
It's like they're playing with fire
when it comes to the future of the planet.
Yeah, it's a scary thought.
And it's not even just about the environment.
Project 2025 also wants to reduce funding for scientific research
in general.
They're going after agencies like the National Institutes
of Health and the National Science Foundation.
So basically, they want to stop scientific progress
in all areas.
That's a really dangerous path to take.
Scientific research is how we make new discoveries
and solve problems.
It's essential for dealing with all sorts of challenges,
from climate change to pandemics to national security.
Yeah, it really shows a misunderstanding
of the role that science plays in society.
Science isn't just about learning things.
It's about solving problems, making people's lives better
and creating a better future.
Exactly.
And when they undermine scientific research,
they're basically taking away our ability to do those things.
It's a recipe for things to get worse, not better.
Yeah, it's definitely a worrying trend.
And it's not only happening in the US either.
We're seeing similar attacks on science and experts
all over the world.
So what can we do about this?
How do we fight back against all this anti-science sentiment
and protect the role that science plays in our society?
Well, the first thing is we have to stand up for science.
We have to celebrate what science has accomplished,
teach ourselves and others about why
scientific research is important, and challenge anyone
who tries to undermine it.
So it's about being vocal supporters of science.
We have to speak out against misinformation,
support science education, and push for policies that
are based on evidence.
Exactly.
We have to make it clear that science isn't about politics.
It's about using reason, evidence, and critical thinking
to understand the world and solve problems.
It's about making sure that our decisions based on facts,
not on ideology or what's politically convenient.
Exactly.
And we have to hold our elected officials accountable.
We need to make sure they support scientific research,
that they listen to what the experts are saying,
and that they make decisions that
are in the best interests of the public and the planet.
That means voting for candidates who value
science and evidence, talking to our representatives
about our concerns, and advocating for policies that
prioritize scientific integrity.
Exactly.
It's about being active citizens, making sure
science has a voice, and working to create a society that
values knowledge, reason, and progress.
It's a fight that's worth fighting.
And it reminds us that the future isn't set in stone.
It's shaped by the choices we make today.
And if we choose to support science
and make decisions based on evidence and demand
that our leaders care about the long-term well-being
of our planet and its people, then we
can create a future where science is guiding us
towards a brighter tomorrow.
I like that.
That's a great point to end on.
Remember, the pursuit of knowledge never ends.
Stay curious, stay informed, and never stop asking questions.
Thanks for joining us on this look
at the intersection of politics, technology,
and the future of science.
Until next time, keep exploring, keep learning,
and keep those questions coming.