Let's Not Canonize NOAA

Father Emil Kapaun is in the second step on the (4 step) path to sainthood for 
his heroic work caring for prisoners (and the captors!) during the Korean War.
In the photo, he is showing off the stem of his pipe which was destroyed when it
was shot out of his mouth. 

Canonization is the process through which the Catholic Church elevates a person to sainthood. Lately, it seems some in the media are determined to make the pre-DOGE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) into some sort of sainted organization -- when has been anything but.

While the Trump Administration is to be commended for nominating a highly qualified person -- Dr. Neil Jacobs --  to head NOAA (still awaiting Senate confirmation), its handling of the DOGE issues has been poor. You can find my thoughts on DOGE and NOAA in this news story from The Dispatch. Among other comments in the article:

That said, there are far too many pretending that NOAA and the NWS were somehow sainted organizations that are being destroyed by DOGE when in fact both had major issues before January 20 when President Trump was sworn in. 

The Washington Post's story earlier this week about NOAA's climate website possibly shutting down is an example of wrongly elevating NOAA when the facts indicate otherwise. Story excerpts:

The [climate] website, created and maintained by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, features climate-related news, maps, data, educational activities and tools to assess climate-related risks. Its mission is to provide “timely and authoritative scientific data and information about climate science, adaptation, and mitigation,” according to a description on the website.  [emphasis mine]

Last month, NOAA said it would stop updating a list of weather disasters that cause billions of dollars in damage. The growing list is often cited as evidence that climate change is making such disasters worse, but some experts say that the main cause is migration to disaster-prone areas and risky development, The Washington Post reported.

Those two paragraphs are unfortunate propaganda attempting to whitewash NOAA's considerable issues in the field of climate data. The site has plenty of non-authoritative data on it. 

The "billion dollar disasters" list (covered numerous times on this blog) was the product of a single person who has left NOAA. His methodology was uncertain -- it wasn't even written down! -- which made it impossible to continue. One of the most basic tenets of science is that it be reproducible -- since no one knows the "billion dollar disasters" technique, it was anything but science. 

Regarding the climate data mess, you will find details here. Instead of the presenting the actual reasons for the discontinuance, the Post quotes NOAA's own description of itself -- "timely and authoritative" -- when even peer-reviewed evidence says otherwise. This one of many examples of "canonization." 

Further, NOAA has a long history, especially under President Biden, of giving low accountability grants to pro-global warming organizations -- while they were starving the National Weather Service of desperately needed resources. Here's just one example:

If Maine wants to make itself more resilient, Maine should pay for it, especially when the NWS doesn't have enough money to launch the full compliment of weather balloons - an issue that, again, began under President Biden. 

In addition, NOAA's climate group has been far too tolerant of "ghost" weather stations. This is especially egregious as -- at NOAA's request -- we taxpayers paid for a state-of-the-art climate network that wouldn't have the "ghost" issue. Evidently, NOAA doesn't like the data it has been getting (slower than anticipated temperature rise) from the new climate network. 

CNN is also onboard with the "elevating NOAA" campaign. 

CNN's source?

A fact sheet from a Democratic congressperson? The CNN article does just about everything but call the Secretary of Commerce a demon but what he was testifying to was essentially correct. There are just four openings out of a staff of 73 at the National Hurricane Center. That is a typical number (people retire, transfer, get promoted, etc.) during recent years. The Hurricane Center is essential. But, its forecasts will not suffer in quality because a handful of vacancies exist this year as they have in previous years.

The NWS (a NOAA agency) has suffered from decreasing accuracy of its tornado warnings since about 2010 and NOAA has done nothing to reverse the trend. They turned down Congress' overtures to installed needed gap-filler radars. Those radars may have helped with the warning accuracy problem. I could go on but you get the idea. 

The bottom line: NOAA is a highly political organization that has numerous flaws. It rewards who it sees as its political friends and, sometimes, vice versa. It is not altruistic nor does it practice some sort of "super(lative) science." Clearly, we as a society need much of the work of NOAA but the agency needs major reform. Making it a candidate for organizational sainthood isn't helping anyone and may make needed reforms more difficult to accomplish.