Burning down the house to kill a mouse

The Trump administration is apparently going to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). This is potentially a catastrophe for meteorological research and education in the US. I don’t have any polite way of phrasing this: it is a monumentally stupid move, and a massive over-reaction to a couple of (sort of) real problems.

First, I think it is fair to say that essentially all of the tools used in modern meteorology were developed by or improved in some way by programs associated with NCAR or its affiliate, the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR). Virtually all of the analysis you see here – and everywhere else in meteorology for that matter – depends to one degree or another on techniques, software, and/or data that has been touched by NCAR/UCAR. Replacing that enormously successful system will be disruptive, difficult, and time consuming, if it can be done at all in today’s environment. And, as I have written before, these are functions the private sector simply cannot take over.

The rationale for the move is supposed to be biased climate change research. The current Republican Party view is that the Government agencies are permeated with Democratic Party operatives out to undermine America, and there is a conspiracy to foist a giant hoax called climate change in order to usher in a socialist authoritarian world government or something. Both of these allegations are rubbish – but also, sadly, contain tiny kernels of truth.

Most of the exaggeration over the subject of climate change has come from advocacy groups and those looking to use the issue as an excuse to implement their largely unrelated social or economic agendas. I am convinced that anthropogenic climate change is real, and we should do something about it, but I’ve had to call out some of these groups who cite my research. While I can do that, it’s harder for a government official to do so. So to blame scientists like me and those working directly for Government for their exaggerations and mischaracterizations is of course unfair and inaccurate.

As I have said many times, I can create a climate response plan that would make Adam Smith rise from the grave to write a new chapter for Wealth of Nations, or Karl Marx weep for joy and sing the Internationale, or most any political view in between. The fact of anthropogenic impacts on climate has little to do with politics. The response to address it (including a fact based, rational decision to do nothing but mitigation), does involve politics as well as economics and engineering.

As a scientist/engineer/economist, it is my role to advise the duly constituted leadership as to the underlying facts, and help them develop valid responses within their respective political worldviews. Do I have opinions on that aspect? Of course – but that’s not my role.

I’m more angry with Republicans over all this because I’ve spent most of my life philosophically on what used to be the “conservative” (1960’s-1980’s era meaning) side of the political spectrum. So take that in to account when reading the following paragraph, because it is written in an angry spirit of betrayal:

Let me be absolutely clear to my Republican friends: climate change is not a hoax. Saying that infuriates me. Calling climate change research fake is to call me either a liar or a dupe, and I will be happy to meet you on the field of honor with guan daos any time you like for satisfaction. Republicans have been completely idiotic to allow Democrats to “own” this issue, and make it about the science rather than the policy.

Unfortunately, there are a few high-profile climate scientists working in government who have become overly political. They are typically academics as much as civil service officers, and often forget that part of the price you pay for working in government is that while you can never compromise your scientific integrity, you also should not publicly either support or criticize the political policies of any given administration whether you like them or not. Your job is first of all to the science, and second to enact the policies of the elected administration and assist them in implementing those polices to the extent it is consistent with the constitution as well as technically with that science, even if you personally opposed the political aspects.

I also have to say here that scientists are probably the best at doing this. The problem of bias and using the system to advance political agendas is far more rampant in the foreign policy, financial, regulatory, security/defense, and even law enforcement agencies of government than the scientific enterprise.

It’s a tough life. But it is essential if our system is going to work. And it’s a two way street: politicians have to trust government employees that when we say “your policy won’t work” we are saying so because of the science (or engineering, or accounting, or law), not because of political views. And politicians shouldn’t put government employees on the spot by demanding they advocate specific policies in public. To be clear Democrats are absolutely not clean on this one, and while less coarse about it are just as bad as Republicans.

So, obviously, government scientists and other workers have to have the integrity to not undermine a policy they disagree with on political grounds by misusing the science. In fact this is rare, but rare isn’t good enough. If you can’t do that, or want to do research *and* speak out publicly on policy, you should be in a university or private organization. Unfortunately there we have a related problem. While working for government does imply limits on public speech, government research funding should not be a limit on free speech as long as the science is sound. That’s partly why we have the Academy in the first place, to be a pain in the a– as contrarians.

Academic freedom is under serious and ever increasing assault by both political parties in the US. The two political parties have far more in common on that than either likes to admit. Between identity politics “cancellation” pogroms on the left, MAGA retribution against funding on the right, and the destruction of the tenure system and rise of professional University administrators in the middle, academic freedom is in severe danger. In a reasonable world, both parties would encourage and fund research even if they don’t like the implications for their policies, because there should be nothing worse than pushing a policy that won’t work! It’s an important safety check, and refuge for those who speak unpopular views. But that is being destroyed.

Make no mistake, while this administration has taken the assault to new levels, each administration in my professional lifetime has pushed the boundaries a bit more towards controlling and suppressing ideas and research they don’t like. Democrats have no room to be smug here – in many ways they are responsible for laying the groundwork for Trump. I’m sure the hard-core party loyalists will scream “whattaboutism!” over that statement, but I think an honest assessment shows it’s true.

The ultimate danger is that all of these actions combined against government and universities are collapsing trust in our vital institutions. Once that trust is destroyed, it’s almost impossible to recover, and we are well down that road across all aspects of our society (link to must-read article by Kyle Saunders).

In summary, the Trump administration attacks on agencies like NCAR are short-sighted, misguided, and highly damaging to our society. In the case of NCAR, it is literally burning down the house to try to kill a mouse; the few instances of questionable research are incredibly trivial compared to the enormous productive work NCAR/UCAR does and can/should be dealt with in other ways. To my Republican friends, push back against this move and force the Administration to use a scalpel rather than a chainsaw, recognize the validity of climate science, and create free market, economically sound policies as needed. To my Democratic friends, learn from this, recognize your own responsibility in paving the road Trump is now traveling, and when back in power push for responsible unbiased science, academic freedom (including the right to attack your stupid policies) and don’t let the pendulum swing too far back in the other direction.