Science or spectacle?

Each day brings more evidence of this administration’s devastating impact. It’s increasingly clear that Project 2025 has served as President Donald Trump’s playbook all along. The budget and staffing cuts imposed on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 2025 erased more than 27,000 years of institutional knowledge. One former employee reported that 1,056 staff members were laid off — representing that cumulative expertise. Although the exact figures have varied across proposals, the agency ultimately faced a 24 to 30% budget reduction earlier this year.

Project 2025 explicitly calls for dismantling and downsizing NOAA and “fully commercializing” the National Weather Service’s (NWS) forecasting operations. As someone who proudly serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Board of Certified Consulting Meteorologists, I find this deeply troubling. Earning certification requires not only rigorous testing in math and science but also a deep understanding of professional ethics, something that seems increasingly scarce in today’s political climate.

The NWS is intentionally conservative in how it communicates forecasts, especially during high-impact weather events. That approach isn’t about being timid, it’s about maintaining public trust.

Weather forecasting is inherently uncertain. Every prediction represents a probability based on complex models, evolving data, and the chaotic nature of the atmosphere. The NWS errs on the side of caution because overstating confidence, or issuing too many high-impact warnings that don’t verify, can erode credibility. When people experience false alarms repeatedly, they’re less likely to act when the next real threat comes.

By contrast, when the NWS waits until the science supports a high level of confidence, its warnings carry weight. The public learns that when the agency says “take cover,” it means it. That credibility has been built over decades of careful, evidence-based communication, standing in stark contrast to the sensationalism that often dominates commercial outlets or social media.

This methodical approach has a psychological benefit, too. It reinforces that meteorology isn’t guesswork or hype, but instead measured, data-driven, and accountable. That’s part of why, despite political attacks and budget cuts, the National Weather Service consistently ranks among the most trusted federal agencies in the United States.

When it comes to forecasting skill, short-term predictions remain the most accurate — typically within a 48-hour window. Midrange forecasts, extending to about eight days, have improved significantly thanks to advances in modeling and computing power. Beyond that, probabilistic outlooks become the most reliable way to communicate. These forecasts express the likelihood that upcoming weeks or months will trend above or below average in temperature and precipitation.

Before transitioning into a discussion about the dangers of fully commercializing forecasting, it’s important to be clear: the private sector plays an essential role in meteorology. We absolutely need private companies. They innovate, tailor forecasts to specific industries, and enhance the dissemination of weather information. But if companies operate without the guardrails provided by the NWS, we risk entering uncharted, and potentially dangerous territory.

Unchecked competition could lead to an arms race of sensational claims: “We issued the earliest tornado warning!” or “We have a 90-day forecast with precise highs, lows, and rainfall totals!” But what happens when those forecasts fail to verify? The credibility of the entire field suffers. Decades of public trust in weather science, carefully built by the National Weather Service and its partners, could erode in just a few storm seasons.

On Sept. 3, in the heart of hurricane season, the National Hurricane Center (NHC) was monitoring a disturbance in the central Atlantic. Early indicators suggested a high chance of tropical development, and the system briefly appeared poised to organize. But as new satellite data and model guidance came in, the probabilities began to decrease.

True to its evidence-based and cautious approach, the NHC refrained from prematurely naming the system. AccuWeather, however, jumped ahead announcing that the disturbance could soon become Tropical Storm Gabrielle. Their forecast went further, projecting intensification to Category 2 strength and a direct path through the Leeward Islands.

Two weeks later, on Sept. 17 at 5 a.m., the NHC officially designated a new tropical depression — Tropical Depression Seventeen. By 11 a.m., it was named Tropical Storm Gabrielle. Over the next several days, Gabrielle strengthened steadily, eventually reaching Category 4 intensity by Sept. 23. But instead of slamming into the Leeward Islands, the storm curved east of Bermuda and remained over open water.

Forecasts can bust — it’s part of the science. Even with major advances in modeling, meteorology still is an inexact field. I have close friends and colleagues at AccuWeather who are outstanding meteorologists, and this isn’t about singling out one company. It’s a cautionary tale. When commercial forecasters compete for clicks, clients, and attention, the temptation to be first, or boldest, can overshadow the responsibility to be right.

This is the danger of a fully commercialized forecasting landscape: if accuracy takes a backseat to marketing, public trust in weather science could unravel as fast as the atmosphere changes.

Chris Gloninger retired from TV meteorology with his last stop in Des Moines. He is now a senior climate scientist at Woods Hole Group on Cape Cod. His writing appears at Weathering Climate, which is part of the Iowa Writers’ Collaborative. You can also reach out via his website: WeatheringClimate.com