Welcome to Meteorology Matters. We're going to
navigate through some, well, some really powerful
forces that shape our lives often unseen. That's
right. Today, we're not just talking about weather
patterns, you know, the things meteorologists
track day in, day out. We're looking at something
else, the huge impact policy decisions can have,
especially on the agencies, the ones we rely
on for our safety or well -being. Yeah, and it's
fascinating, isn't it, how these, like, distant
policy shifts can hit home almost immediately.
Real -world consequences. Exactly. We're going
to dive deep into that today. So we'll be looking
at the critical challenges facing some really
vital organizations. scientific ones, emergency
response groups. We're going to try and unpack
what actually happens when experienced people
are suddenly out of crucial roles and how that
ripples out, how it directly hits public safety.
It makes you wonder, what's the real cost? Not
just dollars and cents, but the cost when science,
when expertise is under pressure. Absolutely.
And we'll also look at the broader picture. These
actions that critics are calling attacks on scientific
integrity. particularly around climate information
and environmental protection. It's got profound
implications. Okay, let's start with the National
Weather Service. I mean, absolutely critical,
right? Daily forecasts, severe weather warnings,
everything. It would be more critical. Reports
lately have highlighted some really big personnel
changes there. So, what did those changes actually
look like? What's the immediate impact? Well,
the scale is, it's pretty significant. based
on the reports. The National Weather Service
lost over 500 employees earlier this year. 500?
Wow. Yeah. And that was linked directly to some
de -federal cuts. And look, that's not just a
number on a page. It means critical vacancies,
empty desks, and really important positions all
across the country. And these weren't just like
entry -level jobs being cut, were they? No, absolutely
not. These are vital roles. I mean, think about
the Bay Area office in Monterey. That's a key
core casting hub. Right. Huge population relies
on them. Exactly. And they saw the termination
of a meteorologist, an administrative support
person, and a facilities tech. Now, okay, these
folks might have been relatively new, but losing
them suddenly, that's an immediate hit to capacity.
And the way it happened sounds disruptive too.
Yeah, apparently they were notified even before
their supervisors knew. Yeah. That causes ripples
internally, you know? For sure. And then you've
got the Center Weather Service Unit in Oakland.
based in Fremont, vital for air traffic control.
Okay, yeah, flight safety. Huge implications.
After one forecaster retired there, the whole
unit was down to a single full -time meteorologist.
One person for the Bay Area's air traffic. One
person. And get this, they already had two vacancies
before a federal hiring freeze kicked in back
in January. Wow. That's stretched incredibly
thin. It shows how these high -level decisions,
these freezes and cuts, they hit the ground immediately.
Real people, real operations. real consequences.
So, okay, let's talk about those consequences.
For the people left behind trying to pick up
the slack, what's the human cost? And for us,
the public. Oh, the human cost is immense, according
to the union folks. That one meteorologist in
Fremont, yeah, working incredible amounts of
overtime, double shifts, sometimes like 16 hour
days, just trying to keep up with the demands
of that massive complex airspace. That's unbelievable
pressure. The union steward called it pretty
daunting and that feels like an understatement.
And it's not just that one office. Other meteorologists
are being shuffled around the country. Short
-term assignments, just plugging critical gaps.
So constantly moving, stressed. Exactly. Adds
personal stress, obviously. But it also makes
it harder to get familiar with local weather
quirks, which is so important for good regional
forecasting. Right. You lose that local knowledge.
And what about the practical, sort of measurable
impacts on daily operations for the Weather Service?
Well, beyond the stress on individuals, the agency's
overall capacity took some serious hits. Tangible
stuff. For the first time ever, some offices
reportedly couldn't operate overnight. Overnight.
But weather happens 24 -7. Exactly. That's a
huge concern. Weather changes fast. Warnings
might be needed anytime. And we also saw reports
that some places cut back on daily weather balloon
launches. Weather balloons. Aren't those fundamental?
Absolutely fundamental. They gather the atmospheric
data, the raw input that feeds our best weather
models. Without that data. Forecast accuracy
suffers. It can, significantly. And maybe the
most concerning thing from the reports. Key leadership
roles in flash flood hotspots remained unfilled.
In flash flood hotspots? That sounds incredibly
dangerous. It's a direct risk. These are areas
prone to sudden, deadly floods. Having leadership
gaps there, it affects the whole chain. from
forecasting to coordinating the public safety
response. It sounds like just a massive disruption.
So, okay, they're talking about rehiring now.
But what's the true cost here? We hear about
budget cuts saving money, but letting experienced
people go, then hiring and training new ones.
That sounds like it could cost more in the long
run, doesn't it? Inefficiency, capacity. That's
a crucial point. You're hitting on this idea
like a false economy. And it's not just us asking.
An official from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, that's the agency overseeing
the Weather Service, NOAA, they actually voiced
this exact concern. Oh, really? Yeah, asking
basically, how much time and money will it cost
to train new people when we already had trained
people? Right. It highlights those hidden costs.
It's not just the new salary. It's the lost productivity
while someone trains. That takes months, sometimes
longer, to get up to speed. And the experience
lost. Exactly. That institutional knowledge,
that gut feeling built over years, it's invaluable,
and it walks out the door. So even if they can
hire faster now. Right. They've got direct hiring
authority, which helps speed things up a bit.
But federal hiring is still, well... Still a
process. It takes months. So the gaps remain
for a while. Yeah. Continued gaps, continued
burdens on the staff who are still there. Any
short -term savings from the cuts, they get eaten
up by this long -term inefficiency and ongoing
vulnerability. It's a real cost. So the positive
news about hiring authority is good, but it doesn't
erase the impact of those cuts. The effects linger.
Precisely. The union's legislative director pointed
out there could be up to 770 empty positions
across the board. 770? Yeah, meteorologists,
hydrologists, scientists, electronics techs.
It's widespread. Now, NOAA has permission to
hire for 450 critical jobs. That could potentially
restore most of the positions lost in those initial
cuts. Okay, that sounds better. It is better,
but the time, the effort, the resources needed
to get all those new people fully trained and
integrated. That's a huge often overlooked cost.
It's not just filling slots on an org chart.
It's rebuilding expertise Rebuilding that smooth
operational flow that got disrupted. So there's
likely a sustained period where the agency just
isn't operating at 100 % That's the concern and
that affects everything for the nuances in your
daily forecast to the critical timing and accuracy
of severe weather warnings Okay, so for you listening
right now, why does all this bureaucratic stuff
these staffing numbers? Why does it matter so
deeply to your everyday? life, your safety. Look,
connecting the dots here, the stakes for public
safety are incredibly high. Just think about
this year alone. We've seen devastating wildfires
in California, right? Multiple destructive tornado
outbreaks across the country. Severe hailstorms
causing massive damage. It feels relentless sometimes.
It does. And meteorologists have actually voiced
concerns, serious concerns, that they might struggle
to accurately forecast hurricanes this year.
Hurricanes? with staffing and data issues. Yeah,
precisely because of staff losses and potential
data gaps. And we're heading into the peak part
of the Atlantic hurricane season now, which is
historically the most dangerous time. That's
deeply worrying. And remember those deadly Texas
floods earlier this year? Over 130 lives lost.
Horrifying. The National Weather Service did
issue increasingly urgent warnings ahead of that.
But warnings are only one part of the equation.
The ability to translate those warnings into
effective action on the ground. emergency management,
evacuations, rescues that depends entirely on
a system that's adequately staffed and resourced.
From the forecasters to the emergency managers.
The whole chain. And those unfilled leadership
jobs in flash flood zones we talked about. That's
a perfect, terrifying example of how a vulnerability
in the system caused by these staffing issues
creates a direct risk to people's lives. OK,
moving beyond forecasting. These policy effects,
they've also shown up in disaster response, right?
Particularly with FEMA, the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. What happened after those
Texas floods you just mentioned? Yeah, this is
where it gets really concerning on the response
side. In the week right after those flash floods
ripped through Texas Hill Country, most survivors,
people who'd lost everything, they literally
could not get through to the federal aid hotline.
Couldn't get through. to the main helpline. Couldn't
get through. And it wasn't just busy lines, public
contract records, internal FEMA call logs. They
indicate that the Department of Homeland Security
actually allowed the funding for those critical
call centers to lapse. The funding lapsed right
after a major disaster. Right after. It wasn't
just a technical glitch. It was a fundamental
breakdown in the immediate federal help system,
leaving people stranded when they were most desperate.
How on earth could that happen? A funding lapse
for a disaster hotline. What does that tell us
about these administrative bottlenecks and their
real human cost? Well, it really highlights how
these administrative changes can have devastating
real -world impacts. There was a policy shift.
The Homeland Security Secretary, Christine Noem,
personally has to sign off on funding requests
over $100 ,000. OK. Before, the FEMA administrator
usually had that authority for larger amounts,
allowing for faster action in a crisis. So an
extra layer of approval. An extra layer, creating
a bottleneck right when speed is essential. FEMA
usually renews these big, multi -million dollar
monthly contracts with the private companies
running the call centers well ahead of time.
Standard procedure, you'd think. Right. But this
time, the funding lapsed the day after the July
4th floods hit. Day after. Yeah. And then it
took another five days, five agonizing days for
people trying to get help for the money to actually
come through. That gap happened precisely when
the hotline was swamped, when people needed aid
most urgently. Five days without full funding
for the hotline while people are dealing with
catastrophic flooding. What did that mean practically?
What did the report say about the impact on survivors?
Okay, get this. Over that five day stretch, July
6th to 10th, the FUMA call centers only managed
to answer about 15 ,000 calls. 15 ,000? Out of
how many? Out of roughly 55 ,000 calls that came
in from survivors. Wow. So only about a quarter
got answered. Roughly, yeah. And to give you
some perspective, After Hurricane Helene last
year, a major storm FEMA call centers were consistently
answering between 50 and 70 percent of calls.
So this was way, way worse. Dramatically worse.
Yeah. Survivors reported waiting over 90 minutes
just to get through, off to getting disconnected
anyway. The service level just plummeted. It
went from nearly 100 percent of calls answered
before hangup down to only 20 percent. 20 percent.
Imagine being that survivor. You've lost your
home, maybe more. You're trying to reach the
one agency supposed to help and you just hit
a wall. Endless waits. Busy signals. That's the
human cost. It's brutal. It's staggering. So
how did FEMA officially explain this? Especially
given those internal numbers showing such a massive
failure, this sounds like they tried to spin
it. Well, the official statement given to NPR
by a FEMA spokesperson was, and I'm paraphrasing
slightly, disasters cause call surges, wait times
increase. But FEMA responded swiftly and efficiently,
ensuring everyone got assistance. Swiftly and
efficiently, ensuring everyone got assistance.
That sounds... completely at odds with the data.
It directly contradicts the internal call logs
we just discussed. And it also contradicts a
memo from FEMA's own acting administrator at
the time, David Richardson. An internal memo.
Yes. That memo explicitly acknowledged the severe
problems caused by the delay and specifically
stated the contract was on hold. On hold. So
the public statement and the internal reality
were two very different things. Completely different.
And that raises huge questions about transparency,
about accountability, especially during a crisis
when people need reliable information. Which
brings us back to accountability. What do the
sources say about the deeper reasons for these
contradictory statements? What's going on here?
Well, it digs into that issue of public trust,
doesn't it? How information is managed. During
testimony before a House subcommittee, Richardson
was asked specifically about July 7th that day
when only 10 % of calls got answered. Right,
the worst day. He stated, quote, the majority
of the calls were answered at the call centers
and insisted there was never a lapse in contract.
But the funding did lapse, even if the overarching
contract didn't. Exactly. Experts, like a former
senior contracting officer Christopher Byrne,
explain this distinction. The main contract with
the vendors didn't technically expire, but the
funding task order for the actual call center
work did lapse. So no money, no work. Pretty
much. Without the funding flowing, the call centers
effectively stopped functioning properly. And
Richardson's own memo from July 10th confirms
this. The same memo you mentioned earlier? The
very same one signed by him. It requested approval
for the call center funding and explicitly said
the contract was placed on hold on July 5, 2025
and is needed immediately. Wow. So the internal
documents clearly show there was a hold, a funding
lapse, that stopped the work, directly contradicting
the public testimony. It seems that way. It points
towards maybe prioritizing technical language
over the operational reality that people were
experiencing. So this doesn't sound like just
a one -time mistake, then. It sounds more like
a systemic problem, adding to the true cost through
risk and inefficiency. No, it really does seem
to reflect a deeper, ongoing issue. and one that
carries significant costs, not necessarily in
budget savings, but in increased risk and reduced
capacity for FEMA. Consider this. The funding
for these crucial call centers is apparently
set up to expire every 30 days. Every month.
They have to re -approve it. Every single month.
Which, according to one FEMA staffer, creates
a crazy workload just constantly chasing these
renewals under that new, higher -level approval
process. That sounds incredibly inefficient.
hugely inefficient. And remember, this is happening
while FEMA has also lost thousands of staff layoffs,
retirements, resignations over the last few years.
Reports show a significant drop in their workforce.
So fewer people trying to navigate a more cumbersome
process. Exactly. And this is happening against
a backdrop where some officials have even suggested
FEMA should be eliminated entirely. Really? Eliminate
FEMA. That has been stated. And as of early August,
the funding for those call centers was apparently
set to expire again just two days later with
no new approval visible in the public system.
Constant uncertainty. Constant uncertainty. Severe
understaffing. Yeah. It creates, as a county
commissioner down in Harris County, Texas put
it on social media, an agency that's understaffed
and under -resourced. That's a dangerous situation
for communities facing disasters. The ripple
effects are real. OK, let's shift gears slightly
away from immediate response, but still very
much about policy impacts. There's a major legal
fight brewing over environmental programs, right?
What's happening with the Environmental Protection
Agency, the EPA? Yeah, this is quite significant.
We're seeing what's described as a first of its
kind proposed class action lawsuit filed against
the EPA and its administrator, Lee Zeldin. A
class action suit. What prompted it? It stems
directly from the administration's decision,
which drew a lot of criticism to just abruptly
terminate an entire three billion dollar program.
Three billion. What program was it? The environmental
and climate justice block grant program. Environmental
and climate justice. OK, what was that program
designed to do? Who was it helping? Well, this
program wasn't just dreamt up by the agency.
It was specifically created by Congress. Ah,
OK. A legislative mandate? Yes. Through the 2022
Inflation Reduction Act. Its whole purpose was
to help hundreds of communities across the U
.S., specifically historically disadvantaged
communities. Communities that often bear the
brunt of pollution and climate change? Precisely.
Places dealing with the legacy of industrial
pollution. Maybe lead pipes still delivering
drinking water, areas prone to flooding that's
getting worse with climate change or suffering
from dangerous urban heat islands. The program
aimed to fund local solutions, ground up projects
to improve resilience and tackle these long -standing
environmental health hazards, things that cause
chronic illness, even death. So very tangible
on the ground hill. Very tangible. Almost 350
groups, rural, urban, towns, tribes were selected.
It was a rigorous process. apparently, with built
-in accountability for how the funds were used.
And the administration just terminated it, a
program mandated by Congress. That's what the
lawsuit alleges, just terminated the whole thing.
That sounds like a major constitutional issue,
potentially, separation of powers. And what about
the cost? Not just the loss program, but the
legal fight itself adds to the overall cost of
these decisions, right? Absolutely. Yeah. That's
central to the lawsuit. The coalition bringing
the suit Nonprofits, tribes, local governments,
they argue exactly that, that terminating a program
Congress mandated violates the separation of
powers, makes it unconstitutional. They also
argue the decision was arbitrary and capricious.
That's legal speak for saying it was done without
good reason, without considering the consequences,
which violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
So multiple legal grounds. Yes. And critics definitely
see this as part of a wider pattern, an effort
to roll back climate action and environmental
justice initiatives. And you're right about the
cost. Defending this lawsuit? plus potential
damages if the government loses. That's another
layer of cost stemming from these policy choices,
far beyond the program's initial budget. So how
is the administration responding in court? This
seems like a pretty direct challenge to their
authority. Well, their first move is to try and
get the case dismissed entirely. They've filed
a motion arguing that the court where it was
filed, the U .S. District Court for D .C., doesn't
actually have jurisdiction. On what grounds?
They're arguing it's basically a contract dispute,
that it belongs in a different court. the U .S.
Court of Federal Claims, which handles monetary
claims against the government. Ah, trying to
reframe it from a constitutional issue to just
contracts. That seems to be the strategy. And
if they succeed with that argument... What happens
then? It would likely break apart the class action.
It would mean all those 349 grant recipients
would have to sue individually. Individually.
Small nonprofits, tribes, suing the federal government.
Exactly. A huge burden. Likely impossible for
many. And crucially, even if they won damages
individually, it wouldn't reinstate the program
itself. The environmental and climate justice
program, as Congress intended it, would remain
dead. So it's a procedural move with massive
implications and the EPA itself. The EPA is just
saying they don't comment on pending litigation.
standard procedure. Okay, so we have legal battles
over programs being cut, but there's also, reports
suggest, a more direct assault happening on the
actual science that underpins environmental rules.
Yes, if we connect this all together, it looks
like a really significant attempt to shift environmental
policy by undermining the scientific foundation.
The EPA recently announced it's proposing to
undo the 2009 endangerment finding. The endangerment
finding. Remind us what that is. There was a
landmark ruling. Absolutely critical. It was
based on a huge body of scientific evidence concluding
that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide endanger
public health and welfare. Okay, so that finding
is what gives the EPA the authority to regulate
greenhouse gases. Precisely. Under the Clean
Air Act, it's the legal and scientific basis
for limiting pollution from cars, power plants,
industry, basically most major sources. It's
the bedrock of U .S. climate regulation. And
they're proposing to undo that bedrock finding.
What would that mean? If they finalize that proposal,
it could essentially dismantle almost all existing
federal climate regulations that rely on that
finding. You would remove the EPA's main tool
for controlling these emissions. Wow. And this
links back to other administration goals. Well,
it seems directly tied to the administration's
stated policy of boosting fossil fuel production.
The drill baby drill approach, which, according
to overwhelming scientific consensus, is the
primary driver of the climate crisis. So critics
are worried this isn't just about regulation,
but about public health. Deeply worried. Remember,
the original endangerment finding was explicitly
about protecting public health and welfare and
that environmental and climate justice program
that was cut. It was aimed at fixing environmental
problems causing death and ill health. So rolling
back the finding that allows regulation of the
pollutants causing these problems, critics see
that as potentially disastrous for Americans'
health. And this is likely heading for the courts,
too. More costs. Absolutely. These proposed rollbacks
are almost guaranteed to trigger major lengthy
court battles, adding again to the true long
-term costs, legal fees, uncertainty, and the
potential health costs if regulations are weakened.
Okay, so beyond policy rollbacks and legal challenges,
it seems there's also an effort, maybe more insidious,
to reshape how climate science itself is understood
and presented by the government. Yes. This is
where the challenges to scientific integrity
really come into sharp focus. The Energy Secretary,
Chris Wright, who comes from an oil and gas background
and supports that drill -baby -drill idea, he
revealed the administration plans to update the
big U .S. climate reports. The national climate
assessments. Exactly. There have been five of
them since 2000. They're compiled by multiple
agencies, hundreds of scientists, widely seen
as the gold standard for understanding climate
change impacts in the U .S. Health, farming,
water, everything. Update can mean different
things, though. What's the concern here from
scientists? It sounds like they don't think this
is a genuine scientific update. No, that's the
core concern. Secretary Wright claimed the previous
assessments weren't fair and said, basically,
if we find stuff we don't like, we want to fix
it. Fix it. That sounds loaded. Very loaded,
according to scientists. Respected figures like
Michael Mann. immediately drew parallels, saying
this is exactly what Joseph Stalin did, altering
science for political ends. Strong words. Very
strong. And Dr. Rachel Cletus from the Union
of Concerned Scientists, she actually co -authored
the last assessment, she said, writes comments
confirmed their worst fears. Which were? That
the plan isn't just to ignore the science, but
to actively replace it with, in her words, outright
lies to downplay the climate crisis and avoid
dealing with it. The fear is a politically driven
rewrite, not a scientific update. And this isn't
just hypothetical. There have already been reports
coming out that raise these kinds of red flags.
Yes, absolutely. It's not just future plans.
Just days before Wright made those comments about
updating the assessments, his own Department
of Energy published a 150 -page report. What
did that report say? It claimed the concern over
the climate crisis was overblown. Overblown.
That was the message. Scientists immediately
jumped on it, calling it a farce full of misinformation.
Secretary Wright himself wrote the introduction
stating, climate change is a challenge, not a
catastrophe. So a direct contradiction to the
message from mainstream climate science. A very
direct contradiction coming officially from a
federal agency. This is a key part of the escalating
challenge to scientific consensus within the
US government. What did experts say about the
scientific legitimacy, the methodology behind
this Department of Energy report? How does it
stack up? Not well, according to the experts
cited. Naomi Oreskes at Harvard, who studies
climate misinformation. Right, you mentioned
her. She said the report's real purpose seemed
to be justifying a failure to regulate fossil
fuels, essentially trying to replace legitimate
science with pseudoscience. And the process.
How was it put together? That's a huge point
of criticism. It was reportedly written by just
five hand -picked scientists, people generally
seen as holding fringe or contrarian views within
the broader climate science community. Only five.
And were they peer -reviewed? Crucially, no.
No traditional peer review. That's the standard
process where other experts scrutinize the work
before it's published. It's fundamental to scientific
credibility. So completely different from how
something like the big UN climate reports are
done? Night and day. The IPCC reports involve
hundreds, over 700 volunteer scientists globally.
They go through multiple rounds of extensive
peer review, and every government signs off on
the final summaries. The DOE report had none
of that rigor. So the concern isn't just disagreement.
It's about the whole scientific process being
bypassed and potentially using data selectively.
Precisely. Scientists pointed out clear examples
of cherry picking. Zeke Housefather at Berkeley
Earth, for instance. His own research was cited
in the DOE report. Oh, interesting. What did
he say? He said they took one single chart from
his 2019 paper, a chart from the supplementary
materials, no less to claim climate models overestimate
warming. But what did his actual paper conclude?
His full paper actually showed the opposite,
that climate models have generally performed
very well over decades. He said it looked like
they discarded the whole paper. because it didn't
fit their narrative, and just pick this one isolated
figure to cast doubt. That does sound like deliberately
misrepresenting the findings. It certainly appears
that way. Andrew Dessler at Texas A &M had a
pretty sharp take on it. What was that? He said
the report reads like a legal brief defending
CO2, not like a fair assessment of evidence.
Its goal, he argued, wasn't truth, but building
a case for CO2's innocence. Wow, using legal
tactics instead of scientific method. And he
pointed out that many claims in the report are
just rehashed old arguments. Shop -worn, decades
-old, discredited climate -denier talking points,
he called them. But now with an official government
stamp on them. That's the really disturbing part
for many scientists. These discredited ideas
now carry the imprimatur, the official approval
of the EPA and the federal government. It elevates
fringe arguments and erodes trust in legitimate
government science. Can you give some specific
examples? What kind of misinformation did this
DOE report contain that scientists pushed back
on? Sure. There were several pretty glaring examples
highlighted. The report claimed warming trends
are overstated. While millions are experiencing
record heat waves. Exactly. a total disconnect
from reality for many people. It's suggested
ocean acidification is basically natural, maybe
even good for marine life. Good. But scientists
warn it's incredibly dangerous, linking it to
past extinctions. Right. The consensus is it's
happening at an alarming rate, potentially reaching
levels unseen in 14 million years, a time of
major extinction. So calling it beneficial, that
flies in the face of the science. What else?
It mentioned Australia's Great Barrier Reef,
saying it showed considerable growth. But isn't
the reef suffering from massive bleaching events?
Exactly. It just had its sixth mass bleaching
since 2016. Bleaching is devastating for corals,
a clear sign of severe stress, mostly due to
warming waters. Claiming considerable growth
ignores this crisis. Unbelievable. Any others?
It also pushed the idea that crops will thrive
with more CO2. The old CO2 is plant food argument?
Yeah. But that ignores the downsides. Most research
shows that the benefits of extra CO2 are outweighed
by the damage from increasing extreme heat and
drought, which will likely worsen crop yields
overall. So cherry -picking again. Ignoring the
bigger picture. It seems so. Bob Kopp at Rutgers
called the report tedious, wearisome, and said
he was personally embarrassed by it coming from
a federal agency. It really paints a picture
of a report completely disconnected from observable
reality and rigorous science, urging people to
ignore their own eyes, essentially. That's exactly
how Michael Mann put it. They're literally trying
to tell us not to believe what we see with our
own two eyes and instead buy into their denialist
framing. It's a profound challenge to evidence
-based understanding and another aspect of the
true cost we're discussing, the cost of eroding
trust in the very institutions meant to provide
reliable information. And beyond just the content
of these reports, has this approach affected
public access to information? Are they making
it harder to find the real data? Yes, significantly
so, according to reports. The government website
that used to host those official national climate
assessments, the ones mandated by law, it was
deleted. taken down. So the public decision makers
can't easily access those comprehensive reports
anymore. It makes it substantially harder. You
have to go digging elsewhere. And there are also
broader reports indicating that much more environmental
data has been deleted or made harder to access
under this administration compared to previous
ones. So less transparency, less data available
for independent checking. It certainly hinders
independent research and public scrutiny. It
limits the ability to hold policies accountable
using the government's own data. Faced with all
this data suppression, challenges to their work,
how has the scientific community itself responded?
It must be incredibly frustrating. It definitely
raises the question of how science carries on
in such a challenging climate. But there's been
a notable response. Remember when the contributors
for the next National Climate Assessment, the
one due in 2028, were reportedly dismissed earlier
this year? Well, shortly after that, two major
scientific societies. The American Meteorological
Society and the American Geophysical Union announced
they were teaming up. To do what? To produce
their own independent, peer -reviewed research
on climate change impacts. Essentially stepping
in to fill the gap, to ensure that rigorous assessment
continues. Wow. So the scientific community is
pushing back, finding ways to keep the science
going independently? It shows an incredible commitment.
an unwavering dedication to the work to ensuring
reliable climate information remains available.
Even if they face hurdles within government agencies,
they're demonstrating that the pursuit of scientific
truth will find a way, even if it means doing
it outside traditional channels. What a journey
we've taken today on meteorology matters. It's
compelling, but also, frankly, pretty concerning
seeing how these policy decisions ripple outwards.
Yeah, what really stands out is just how interconnected
everything is. policy, scientific integrity,
public safety. They aren't separate silos. The
National Weather Service's ability to forecast,
FEMA's ability to respond, the EPA's role in
protecting health and environment. These are
fundamental pillars for the country and the challenges
they're facing now. It just hammers home how
crucial, robust, independent science is for all
of us. And it really reveals those true costs
we talked about. Costs beyond the budget lines.
Exactly. lost productivity, increased community
risk, that drain of institutional knowledge,
and maybe most importantly, the erosion of public
trust when the work gets undermined or twisted.
It definitely leaves us with a provocative thought,
doesn't it? Especially now, with extreme weather
seemingly on the rise, with environmental changes
happening so fast, how much do we as a society
really depend on getting the straight, unvarnished
truth from our scientific institutions? It feels
absolutely critical. And what happens when that
truth gets questioned or buried or maybe intentionally
spun for other reasons. What are the long -term
implications? Something for all of you to think
about. Definitely food for thought. Well, thank
you for joining us on Meteorology Matters. If
you want more insights into meteorology and its
vital role, you can follow meteorologist Rob
Jones. He's on Instagram at meteorologist, just
the word meteorologist. Easy to remember. On
TikTok, he's TV meteorologist. And over on YouTube,
search for Rob Jones Hurricane, all one word.
You'll find his channel there and also the full
Meteorology Matters playlist. Great resources
there. We really appreciate you tuning in and
we look forward to having you with us next time.