The Meteorology Version of "Inside Baseball:" The NCAR Controversy Heats Up

This posting is primarily for people in the field of atmospheric science.

A popular weather blog opened yesterday with news of a lawsuit where a taxpayer-funded organization called the "University Corporation for Atmospheric Research" (a/k/a UCAR, a Washington, DC consortium of colleges with meteorology and similar programs) is using taxpayer dollars to sue other taxpayer supported organizations because the Trump Administration wishes to close the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado and distribute its programs to other research institutions. UCAR claims that defunding NCAR "violates the Constitution" and doing so will, among other things, harm the U.S. "national security." As I was writing this, a second blog weighed in making similar points. 

Meteorology is tiny profession (per Grok, in 2024 there were 9,400 practicing meteorologists in the United States) which is of far, far greater importance than its numbers would suggest. [I checked: 29 states each have more practicing attorneys than the entire U.S.A. has practicing meteorologists. The attorney number for the nation is 1,374,720.] 

Because the great majority of meteorologists are paid by the government in one way or another and because most are politically liberal (and very nice, public-spirited people) the Trump Administration's proposal to close NCAR and send its research functions elsewhere in the government has set off a firestorm within our ranks. 

Regardless of the value of NCAR, I believe this lawsuit crosses a line. Forget NCAR for a moment. Think about precedent. Think about governance. 

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal.
Do we really want judges micromanaging 
the entire nation? What if the judge -- one person --
happens to be scientifically wrong? If your child is harmed? 
Judges have ruled judges cannot be sued. 

Suppose a future fictional National Institute to Study Conservatism (a government nonprofit) filed a lawsuit because a fictional future Democratic president wanted to defund a fictional nonprofit for the "Rush Limbaugh Memorial Museum." Many might be thinking in terms of "arrogance" and "entitlement" in the sense that taxpayer-paid workers are spending taxpayer dollars (not their own) going to court to attempt to supplant our elected representatives' judgment. After you thought about it a little more, you might say, "if we wanted to fund a Limbaugh Museum, we would have elected a conservative Republican president who won both the electoral college and the popular vote."

Is it a beneficial precedent for one taxpayer-supported organization to be able to sue on behalf of another taxpayer-supported organization to force the U.S. (with its > $39,000,000,000 deficit) to spend even more tax dollars? Aren't presidents elected to prioritize and work with Congress on budgets?

NCAR's contribution to the conquering downbursts has saved the lives of many airline passengers. They have done other useful work. I've had good experiences there and I've met some great friends. Personally, I wish this topic had not come up. 

That said, there is more at stake than NCAR. The proper place to make this argument is Congress or by trying to convince the White House. Not the courts. 

Why? Once set, precedents have a way of coming back and biting us. Be careful what you wish for.