“Should we talk about the weather? Should we talk about the government?” sang R.E.M.’s Michael Stipe on “Pop Song 89,” a tongue-in-cheek commentary on the superficiality of modern social interactions, released back in 1988.
America’s sociopolitical culture has gradually evolved over into a strange and unpredictable place, where seemingly nothing is allowed to simply be a neutral, generally accepted truth, observation, or pursuit. Almost everything now carries nonnegotiable tribal political baggage and leads to conflict with the greatest of ease. Facts either don’t matter or their interpretation must be bent to fit a particular ideology.
Which brings us to the once-harmless territory of daily weather, which Stipe so slyly referenced. Long a “safe harbor” for conversation, it can now quickly turn into a squall of disagreement. Why? Because weather and climate, while distinct, are related. Given how politically charged climate change has become, it was inevitable that the controversy would spill over into discussions about weather.
It’s a shame, because recognizing the importance and progress of meteorology — and giving it the priority it deserves — is something everyone should support. The nonpartisan benefits should be obvious, as weather touches everyone and affects every form of human endeavor. Its centrality in daily life is difficult to overstate.
There’s good reason for the National Weather Service’s placement — along with its parent agency, NOAA — in the Department of Commerce. Commerce depends entirely on transportation, and no form of transportation is unaffected by the weather. Hence, no form of commerce is unaffected by the weather. Duh.
So why would any sane person knowingly harm our national capabilities for weather forecasting? It defies all common sense — which is, sadly, unsurprising.
