A veteran Ph.D. meteorologist with the National Weather Service (NWS) was physically assaulted by NWS Director Louis Uccellini for mentioning “cooling” during a talk about the Earth’s climate in 2014 according to an account provided to CFACT.
The Director allegedly put his hand on the meteorologist’s chest as a warning, and pushed the employee against the wall. The whistleblower, who spoke to CFACT on the condition of anonymity, described a culture of fear and ostracism at NWS and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) against those who dissent from the “global warming” narrative.
The meteorologist has peer-reviewed dozens of articles, has authored several peer-reviewed articles, and has over 40 years of meteorology experience.
“I was giving a talk to fellow NWS staff about the jet stream flow in the upper atmosphere. What it showed was large amplitude waves in both the northern and southern hemispheres. I explained that the only way the jet stream could get to be high amplitude is if the atmosphere was actually cooling.”
Director Uccellini told CFACT through his spokesperson, Susan Buchanan, that “this alleged incident never happened” and that he “has never had a physical altercation with anyone in his 40-year career. For this particular topic, both cooling and warming need to occur for the jet to intensify, not one versus the other. So the alleged disagreement doesn’t make sense from a scientific perspective.”
However, the veteran meteorologist backed up the assertion with details. “Right at the bathroom break, the Director of NWS, Louis Uccellini, put a hand on my chest and pushed me up against the wall and said ‘Don’t ever mention the word cooling again.’ He did not mean it in a ‘joking’ way, he absolutely violated my personal space and was dead serious. This was back in 2014.”
Buchanan stated that Director Uccellini, “encourages open discussion on all science issues and perspectives and has always encouraged a culture of robust scientific discussion.”
However, the meteorologist sees things quite differently and describes a culture of fear at the agency in which experts are silenced through intimidation. The meteorologist made clear that this was not an isolated incident.
“One coworker who is a fellow ‘skeptic’ and I have to be careful about what we talk about at our desks or the break room,” the NWS employee explained. “We can’t let the word get out that we aren’t buying into the whole ‘the climate is warming’ narrative.”
“It is an almost Orwellian, nasty-type society.”
The meteorologist further stated that climate data is altered at NWS and NOAA for political purposes: “It is an incredibly well-oiled propaganda machine. I read the reports that come out, and they either have no science in it, or its completely false.”
“Take the work on sea surface temperatures. This has been falsified. A few years ago, an article came out that NOAA and NWS were going to recalibrate sea surface temperature measurements from ocean buoys deployed across the globe to match sea surface temperature measurements at engine intake rooms of ships.”
“Everybody knows sea surface temperature buoy measurements are more accurate than engine intake rooms because the measurements from ships are too warm-the engine rooms warm the measurements by a few degrees because they are near a ship engine! I can no longer find this article, they seem to have removed it from circulation.”
The whistleblower further detailed inherent flaws in climate computer modeling.
“Computer modeling or climate modeling is fanciful stuff because we already know that basic weather forecasting models can’t really forecast beyond two to three weeks what the weather is going to be,” explained the NWS employee. “None of the climate models that they are running have ever been tested successfully in forecasting observed temperatures and precipitation since the 1970s to the present.”
The meteorologist said that NOAA and NWS actually have CO₂ data from the past several decades it could use to more accurately evaluate the impact CO₂ will have on temperature forecasts in climate models, yet has declined to do so.
When asked why it hasn’t been done, the meteorologist was at a loss for words. “Frankly I don’t know, perhaps because then the ‘emperor would be shown to have no clothes.”
In other words, the meteorologist explained, the data would show the impact of CO₂ on temperature is far less than computer simulations project.
“If they can’t simulate certain key features of the atmosphere or the ocean such as El Niño or La Niña, well that’s a major climate impact, and if you can’t factor that in, how are you able to forecast the climate? These models then start wildly diverging from reality after about two weeks and enter what I like to call ‘Model Climate Land,’ because it is not showing anything close to reality.”
“I mainly do weather forecasting, but we forecast for the whole world, we have all the weather, satellite, buoy, ship, and model data so I get to look at that stuff, and we’re forecasting the circulation in the atmosphere, as well. You get to see trends over the years, or lack thereof.”
CFACT’s source ended with an eye-opening account of the state of the climate debate in scientific communities at colleges and universities.
“When I was a graduate student I had a professor come up to me, and he said in the late 1970s ‘If you want to make a name in the field, want to be famous, CO₂ is the place to go.’ There is a lot of money to be made, authority and control over people’s lives at stake.”
“It was weird to me because I knew CO₂ was going up but knew it wouldn’t have very much impact on temperatures. Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas.”
“But if I were to mention that, or solar minimums or any other climate issue actually grounded in science, my younger colleagues wouldn’t have any idea what I’m talking about, because they’re not learning about it in school. It’s rarely taught at the college and university level.”
Are government researchers who feared to speak openly about global warming during the Obama Administration sensing a new climate of openness? The scientific method requires transparent, fearless and robust dialogue and questioning. Researchers must be free to express their scientific doubts and observations without fear of reprisal.
Update: A clarification to the article has been made to more accurately reflect the communication between CFACT and the NWS spokesperson on the Director’s response to the allegations.