Welcome back to Meteorology Matters, everyone.
Today, we're gonna be looking into some unsettling stuff,
potential cuts to the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration.
Ooh.
These are the folks that keep us up to date
on hurricanes, heat waves and all that.
Right.
And it looks like they might be facing
another round of downsizing.
Oh, wow.
And we're gonna break down why this is a big deal,
especially with hurricane season coming up.
Yeah, that's a little concerning.
We really rely on the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration for, you know.
Yeah.
For all that stuff, especially during hurricane season.
These cuts could really have an impact on, you know,
their ability to keep us all safe.
Yeah, it's a lot to unpack.
So let's get started with what we know.
It seems like the Trump administration is considering
letting go of another 1,000 employees from NOAA.
Wow.
And that comes after about 1,300 people
have already left the agency.
Oh, wow.
So either by choice or...
Right.
Not by choice.
Yeah.
It's losing that many people.
Potentially 20% reduction in the workforce.
That would be a major blow.
It would be huge.
I think about all the extreme weather
we've been seeing lately, you know.
Yeah.
And it's becoming more frequent and more intense.
Yeah.
NOAA needs all hands on deck to handle that,
not, you know, fewer people.
Right.
And it's not just the number of people either.
Yeah.
The administration hasn't really said
which programs might face these cuts.
So folks work at a NOAA.
Right.
You know, they're probably on edge.
Totally.
Not knowing if their jobs or even their whole departments
are gonna get cut.
Yeah.
That uncertainty can be really tough.
You know, how do you focus on doing research,
gathering data and all that when you're worried about
if you'll have a job tomorrow.
Exactly.
That's gonna stifle innovation
and that's a big problem.
Yeah.
It really makes me wonder what's driving these cuts
in the first place.
I mean, we know that groups like the Heritage Foundation
have criticized NOAA.
Right.
Saying that they're, you know,
promoting what they call climate change alarm.
Yeah.
The Heritage Foundation being a conservative think tank
has definitely influenced the Trump administration
and their policies and how they view climate change and NOAA.
Right.
That's a big piece of this puzzle, I think.
But it's not just conservative groups raising concerns.
Right.
The American Geophysical Union,
they represent a lot of earth and space scientists
and they're sounding the alarm too.
Yeah.
They're worried that if we undermine NOAA's work,
Yeah.
that could put the public at risk,
put the economy at risk.
Absolutely.
And they have a right to be worried.
You know, a lot of private weather forecasting companies,
they depend on the data and research that comes from NOAA.
Right.
Like the apps that we check every day,
the businesses that, you know,
make decisions based on the weather.
Right.
They're relying on NOAA.
Exactly.
To all of that.
And let's not forget the human cost too.
Yeah.
You know, these are people's livelihoods.
Their passion for science getting disrupted.
Yeah.
You know, just imagine your colleagues getting let go.
Suddenly your research put on hold
because your credit card is frozen.
Yeah, that's awful.
It sends a chill throughout the whole scientific community.
It's incredibly demoralizing.
When scientists are working under that kind of pressure,
you know, that fear.
Yeah.
It's almost impossible to attract good people
and to maintain a high level of research.
Right.
That's a problem that could have ripple effects
for years to come.
Yeah.
And it's not just NOAA.
Oh.
The CIA, the Defense Department, even Veteran Affairs,
they're all facing similar staff cuts.
It seems like that's a broader goal
of the Trump administration, right?
Shrinking the sides of the federal government.
There's even been talk of eliminating diversity
and inclusion initiatives across the board.
That's interesting because, you know, on one hand,
they're cutting back in these areas,
but they're also, you know, initially it seemed like
they were really keen on expanding the Office of Space Commerce
within NOAA.
And this is the office that's responsible
for tracking satellites and preventing collisions,
which is getting more and more important
with a growing number of satellites out there.
It seems a little contradictory, right,
supporting space exploration while cutting funding
to essential agencies like NOAA.
The Office of Space Commerce, they play a vital role
in, you know, the safety and progress of space activities,
which is really crucial if the U.F. wants to remain
a leader in commercial space.
Right.
It's not just about bragging rights, either.
No.
The Office of Space Commerce, they impact our daily lives,
you know.
Right.
They're responsible for licensing
and regulating commercial spacecraft.
Yeah.
Which affects everything, GPS to satellite communication.
Cutting their funding could really have a domino effect
on the whole space industry.
Right.
Innovation could be stifled and the U.S.
might lose its edge, you know, on a global scale.
Yeah, it's like there's a disconnect between, you know,
the vision of space exploration.
Right.
And then the reality of these budget cuts.
Right.
They can't really have one without the other.
You need good scientific research and a dedicated workforce
to, you know, achieve great things in space.
Yeah.
The most worrisome part is that we're only starting
to understand the potential long-term consequences
of these cuts.
Right.
It takes years, even decades, to build up expertise
and infrastructure, you know, for cutting edge
scientific research.
And these cuts could set us back significantly.
Yeah.
And in fact, our ability to understand and respond
to big challenges like climate change and emerging
technologies, all of that.
And what about the people that are coming up, you know,
the next generation of scientists and researchers?
Right.
What kind of message does this send to them?
Yeah.
Why would they want to dedicate themselves to public service
when they see their colleagues being treated this way?
Exactly.
You know, their work being devalued.
That's a crucial point.
Yeah.
We need to be encouraging young people to go into these fields.
Right.
These cuts send the opposite message.
We need to encourage these people to solve these complex
problems in the future.
It really does make you think, huh?
It does.
One of the articles we read really
highlighted this potential contradiction.
Oh, you mean the one where they are supporting,
you know, American leadership in space,
but then at the same time, they're cutting funding?
Yeah, to the agencies that could actually, you know.
That make it happen.
They could happen.
It's like they are trying to reach for the stars
while sawing off the branch they're sitting on.
It really does make you wonder about their vision
for the future, doesn't it?
It feels very short-sighted.
Yeah, like prioritizing these budget cuts over investing
in our future.
Right.
And the article specifically talked
about the Office of Space Commerce,
which ironically, the Trump administration initially
really liked this.
Yeah, they were champions of it at first.
This is the office, you know, that tracks satellites and debris.
Right.
They are kind of like the air traffic controllers for space.
Yeah, making sure that things don't collide.
Right.
And it's not just about, you know,
preventing satellites from crashing into each other.
No, no, no.
As we get more and more satellites up there,
the risk of collision goes up too.
Exponentially.
And we have companies like SpaceX launching
all these constellations of satellites, you know.
So the risk is just getting bigger and bigger.
And it's not just, you know, a couple pieces of broken machinery
if something crashes up there.
It could be way worse than that.
We could have a cascade of debris, you know.
One collision could set off a chain reaction.
Oh, wow.
And lead to something called the Kessler syndrome.
Kessler syndrome.
What is that?
Well, imagine that there are so many objects in low Earth orbit,
you know, that collisions are basically unavoidable.
And then you just have this chain reaction of destruction.
Wow.
It's a domino effect on a cosmic scale.
So space junk basically becomes this huge hazard.
Exactly.
It could totally mess up satellite communications,
GPS systems, and space travel would be incredibly dangerous.
It would be, you know, devastating for anything
we want to do in space.
And this office of space commerce,
they are supposed to be the ones that prevent this.
Right.
They develop these systems for space traffic management,
you know, to make sure that everything up there
can coexist peacefully.
Right.
But it's a tough job.
It requires resources, expertise.
So cutting their budget seems kind of counterproductive.
It really does, especially if you're
trying to promote space commerce and be a leader in the field.
The article also said the cuts to the office of space
commerce could impact the licensing and regulation
of commercial spacecraft.
That's another important thing that could be affected.
They make sure that companies operating in space
are, you know, doing things responsibly and safely.
Right.
So without that oversight, we could end up
with kind of a wild west situation.
It's a good way to put it, yeah.
You could have all these poorly designed or operated
satellites increasing the risk of collisions, interference
with other systems, even environmental damage.
And that could hurt the US base industry, right?
Of course, if companies don't have a stable regulatory
environment, they might just go somewhere else.
Me too, Seth.
It would be a big loss for American innovation
and leadership in space.
And that could affect a lot of other industries
that rely on space technology.
You know, reading all these articles,
I can't help but feel uneasy about the future.
And it sounds like a lot of people
at NOAA feel the same way.
Oh, yeah.
I bet with all the layoffs and the uncertainty.
Yeah.
Plus the feeling that they're not valued.
Yeah.
You know that their work isn't appreciated.
Right.
It's not a good environment.
No.
One article talked about how people would be let go
without any warning.
Oh, god.
Leaving everyone else wondering if they were next.
Right.
And then some employees had their credit cards frozen,
so they couldn't buy stuff for their research.
Wow.
That's just demoralizing.
Yeah.
Imagine you're a scientist who loves your work.
Yeah.
And suddenly, you can't even get the basic materials
you need.
Right.
Like, they don't respect you at all.
Yeah.
It just feels like chaos and a lack of respect
for the people doing this important work.
Yeah.
And it's a terrible message to send to the whole scientific
community.
Right.
Like, who would want to work for an organization that
treats its employees that way?
Yeah.
Exactly.
Especially young scientists who are just starting out.
Yeah.
You see this happening.
They might think twice about going into public service.
Right.
It's hard enough as it is to get good people into science,
and this just makes it worse.
But it's not all bad news, right?
The articles mention these stand-up for science rallies
that are happening all over the country.
Oh, that's good.
So it seems like people are paying attention
and they are concerned about the future of science.
That's encouraging.
It shows that people get it.
You know?
Yeah.
They understand how important science is.
And they're willing to speak out against this.
Right.
And it's not just scientists who are worried.
It's everyday people too.
Yeah.
We all benefit from scientific research.
Right.
When people see science being attacked,
discredited, defunded, it's alarming.
Yeah.
And it's not just happening now.
Right.
There have been these attempts to cut funding before.
Right.
To the National Weather Service.
And usually it's driven by some kind of agenda,
not good policy.
Right.
But what's scary now is how sudden it is.
Right.
And how they don't seem to care about the consequences.
Yeah.
It feels like they are gambling with our future.
Yeah.
Our ability to deal with the challenges that we face.
It's like they don't care about facts and evidence anymore.
Yeah.
Like it's all about ideology and politics.
It's a worrying trend.
And it's not just in science either.
Right.
We see it everywhere.
It's tough to have a conversation based on facts
without it turning into a fight.
Right.
And that's dangerous for science and for society.
Yeah.
When we lose sight of the truth, we can't make good decisions
about the future.
Exactly.
But there's still hope, right?
Yeah.
There are people out there fighting for science,
advocating for facts and evidence.
Well, we need more of that.
Well, do we need to support these people?
Right.
We need to make our voices heard.
Speak up for science.
Demand transparency from our leaders.
Hold them accountable.
Exactly.
The future of science depends on it.
The future of our planet even.
Right.
We need to remember that science isn't just
about facts and figures.
It's a way of thinking.
Right.
A process of discovery.
Yeah.
It's crucial to human progress.
Science has brought us so many great things.
Yeah.
You know, in medicine technology.
Right.
And it'll continue to do that if we let it.
Exactly.
We need to invest in science, education, support research,
create a good environment for scientists.
Because at the end of the day, we
need science to solve the big problems.
Absolutely.
Climate change, pandemics, sustainable energy, you know.
Science is the answer, not the enemy.
Yeah.
It's our best shot at a better future.
And we need to defend it.
We do now more than ever.
Make some noise, let the world know that science matters.
Yeah.
A society that ignores science is a society
that's doomed to fail.
That's powerful.
We need to keep saying that.
We can't let apathy win.
So what can people do to make a difference, you know,
if they are feeling overwhelmed by all of this?
Well, stay engaged.
Yeah.
Stay informed.
Read articles.
Listen to podcasts like this one.
Talk to your friends and family about it.
Don't underestimate the power of your voice.
Exactly.
Contact your elected officials.
Right.
Tell them that you support science funding.
Yeah.
Support organizations that are promoting science,
literacy, STEM education.
And encourage kids to be curious and to learn.
Right.
We need that next generation of scientists and engineers
and innovators.
Because they're the ones that are going
to be dealing with all this.
Right.
The future belongs to the curious.
That's a great way to put it.
Yeah.
The people who ask questions, the people who want to learn
and make the world a better place.
Exactly.
This whole thing with the tuts.
Yeah.
It makes you think about the bigger picture.
It really does.
What do we value as a society?
What's the government's role?
Yeah.
What should the government be responsible for?
And what should be left to private companies?
Right.
It's a classic debate.
Some people say that government should support
scientific research.
Because some areas are just too risky or need
long-term investment.
That companies won't do.
And then others say, let the free market decide.
Let private companies take the lead.
So it sounds like it's all about finding the right balance.
Yeah.
I think so.
It's not about one side being right or wrong.
Right.
It's about understanding the pros and cons of each approach
and figuring out how to make them work together.
So in your opinion, what does that balance look like?
Well, I think it depends on the specific field.
You know?
OK.
Like with basic research or early stage technology
development.
Yeah.
Those things might take years to pay off.
Right.
So government funding is really important
to get those things started.
It's like providing that initial boost to get things going.
Exactly.
And then once those ideas have developed and show some promise,
then private companies can step in and turn them
into actual products and services.
So it's more of a partnership than a competition.
Right.
It should be.
We need a system where the government and industry
can work together.
Right.
Each one playing its part in driving progress.
But it seems like these proposed cuts are, you know,
tipping the scales too far in one direction.
Yeah.
That's my worry too.
If we cut funding to these important scientific agencies,
it weakens that partnership, you know?
Right.
And the whole system suffers.
It's like neglecting the foundation of a house,
you know?
Eventually, it's going to fall apart.
And those problems can affect everyone, not just scientists.
Right.
Scientific progress doesn't happen in isolation.
Yeah.
It affects everything, health care technology,
even our understanding of the world.
Exactly.
So if we want to solve these big problems,
like climate change.
Right.
Climate change, pandemics, sustainable energy, all of it.
We need a strong scientific foundation.
We do.
And that means investing in it.
Both the government and private companies need to contribute.
Right.
We need to encourage curiosity, a love of learning.
Yeah.
We have to recognize that science is essential.
Right.
It's not a luxury.
No, it's a necessity.
So for our listeners out there who are feeling
a little concerned about all of this,
what can they do to make a difference?
Stay engaged, stay informed.
Read articles, listen to podcasts like this one,
talk to people about it.
Don't be afraid to speak up.
Exactly.
Contact your elected officials.
Tell them you support science funding
advocate for policies that are based on evidence.
Right.
Support organizations that promote science literacy
and STEM education.
And encourage kids to be curious and to love learning.
Exactly.
We need to inspire the next generation of scientists
and engineers.
Because they're the ones who are going
to inherit all these challenges.
They are.
You know the future belongs to the curious.
That's a great way to put it.
The people who ask questions, who want to learn
and make the world better.
That's what it's all about.
Well, thank you so much for joining us today
and sharing your insights.
It was my pleasure.
And for our listeners out there,
you can find me, Rob Jones on Instagram and TikTok.
And don't forget to subscribe to the Meteorology Matters
playlist on YouTube.
Until next time, keep those minds curious.