When Weather Becomes Politics: The Climate Agenda at NOAA

In public life, there are few agencies more quietly ubiquitous than the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Most Americans encounter NOAA indirectly: a warning buzz on their phone, a forecast for the weekend, a hurricane track snaking across the screen. Yet beneath this cloak of scientific authority, something troubling has taken root. NOAA is not merely predicting the weather. It is prosecuting an agenda. That agenda, wrapped in the trappings of climate science, increasingly resembles an ideological mission more than an empirical one. For this reason, recent budget cuts and structural reforms are not merely justified, they are necessary. A leaner NOAA, stripped of its ideological excess, stands a better chance of returning to its original purpose: to forecast the weather, protect the public, and serve the nation, not shape its politics.

To say that NOAA is bad at its core function would be inaccurate. It provides vital data and coordination during hurricanes, wildfires, and floods. The problem is not that NOAA is incapable of forecasting. The problem is that it is increasingly uninterested in it, preferring instead to posture as the vanguard of climate alarmism. And where that ideology collides with science, science gives way.

Consider hurricanes, the agency's perennial poster child for climate catastrophe. Each summer, NOAA ramps up predictions, veering into speculative declarations about warmer oceans and supercharged storms. Yet NOAA's own databases contradict its rhetoric. According to research by Roger Pielke Jr. and meteorologist Ryan Maue, published in January 2025, global hurricane activity, including major hurricane landfalls, has not increased over the long term. While 2024 tied for the highest number of major hurricane landfalls (Category 3+) since 1970, broader analysis across data stretching back to 1851 shows no statistically significant increase in either frequency or intensity. Quite the opposite: US landfall records reveal a slight decrease in total hurricane strikes over time.

This is not fringe science. It is based on NOAA’s own HURDAT dataset, Maue’s global Accumulated Cyclone Energy metrics, and independent studies endorsed by climatologists themselves. As Pielke and Maue explain, what has increased are economic losses, but these correlate not with stronger storms but with human development. The more people build homes on coastlines, the more damage hurricanes cause. It is not the weather that has worsened, but the exposure.

Yet despite this, NOAA continues to imply causation where only correlation exists. This is not ignorance. It is advocacy. And advocacy, when disguised as science, becomes propaganda.

Let us place NOAA’s modern climate crusade in historical context. The agency was born from a post-war consensus that valued data, forecasting, and public safety. It flourished in an era of modesty about models and caution about claims. Today, however, NOAA has become a sprawling $6.72 billion bureaucracy with over 12,000 employees (before recent cuts), many of whom now labor less to predict tomorrow’s rainfall than to shape public opinion about the next century’s temperature. In early 2025, over 1,800 NOAA employees were laid off under the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency reforms, aimed at restoring the agency’s core mission and paring back ideological drift.

One might argue that a focus on climate change is justified. After all, NOAA possesses vast observational capacity, satellites, balloons, buoys, models. Shouldn't such tools be used to tackle climate threats? Perhaps. But the question is not whether NOAA should study climate. It is whether it should subordinate everything else to a singular narrative about climate doom, and whether it should do so at the expense of transparent, apolitical science.

Indeed, even the agency’s operational forecasting has suffered. A July 2024 analysis in the Washington Post found dramatic inconsistencies in NOAA’s temperature forecasts, with cities like Miami faring well while towns such as Paonia, Colorado, saw error margins of nearly six degrees Fahrenheit for same-day predictions. In some regions, private services like AccuWeather or The Weather Company (formerly under IBM) outperformed NOAA forecasts for days at a time. A ForecastWatch study confirmed AccuWeather’s superiority in 1–5 day forecasts. A separate 2021 study named The Weather Company the most accurate globally. These companies, with budgets under $200 million and staff numbering in the hundreds, routinely match or exceed NOAA’s predictive capabilities.

How? The answer is not magical. It is focus, efficiency, and competition. AccuWeather employs roughly 400 people. The Weather Company just over 450. Compare that to NOAA’s pre-2025 payroll of 12,000. This disparity in staffing and budget suggests an agency whose mission has metastasized. Instead of a nimble forecaster, we now have a lumbering bureaucracy whose climate divisions churn out alarmist reports, often thinly veiled policy advocacy masquerading as scientific consensus.

Even within the scientific community, cracks are forming. The IPCC’s own assessments acknowledge low confidence in detecting long-term trends in tropical cyclone frequency or intensity, citing natural variability and incomplete data. NOAA, by contrast, is far less cautious in its public communications. Its press releases and climate summaries often lean on cherry-picked statistics beginning in 1970, conveniently the lowest activity period for hurricanes in the North Atlantic, which naturally makes any upward trend look more dramatic.

This is not merely an academic dispute. It has policy consequences. An agency that exaggerates hurricane risk to drive home a climate message is not just misleading the public. It is also reshaping zoning laws, insurance markets, and disaster relief planning on faulty premises. When federal data becomes a narrative tool, it ceases to be neutral infrastructure and becomes instead an instrument of persuasion.

And persuasion is precisely the point. NOAA’s climate push is not merely about informing citizens. It is about engineering consensus. The agency promotes a worldview in which natural variability is taboo, fossil fuels are the enemy, and dissent is denial. This is no longer the weather bureau of old. It is a ministry of narrative.

If that claim feels strong, consider the institutional incentives. Climate change is a funding magnet. NOAA’s budget proposals routinely emphasize climate resilience, sustainability, and environmental justice. Under the Biden administration, these themes dominated grant language and staffing priorities. Even internal reports tilted toward speculative worst-case climate modeling, often sidelining contradictory data. By exaggerating risk, NOAA ensures future appropriations, prestige, and influence. It becomes, in short, a self-licking ice cream cone.

President Trump’s reforms aimed to reverse this dynamic explaining, NOAA as an agency "with immense technical capacity but diffused mission focus," recommending a pivot back to forecasting, fisheries, and atmospheric research. NOAA was not founded to lobby for climate policy. It was built to predict the weather and manage the oceans.

This does not mean that climate science is invalid. It means that science must be kept distinct from ideology. A weather agency is not a think tank. It should not pick sides in political battles. Nor should it suppress data that contradicts prevailing narratives.

If we care about public trust, if we want citizens to believe tomorrow’s hurricane warning or evacuation order, then NOAA must restore its credibility. That begins by stepping back from climate theater and returning to first principles: transparent data, modest claims, and accurate forecasts. Let the politicians argue about carbon. Let NOAA get back to the weather.

If you enjoy my work, please consider subscribing https://x.com/amuse.