The Tenpenny Files with Dr. Justin Mabie

Dr. Justin Mabie spent 17 years inside NOAA. What he witnessed there eventually convinced him to write a book with an extraordinary accusation in its title: Climate Change Deception: The Alarming Corruption of Science.

That alone deserves attention because Mabie isn’t approaching climate science as a political commentator. He is a scientist whose career has spanned atmospheric and ocean sciences, geophysics, space weather, radar systems, and the stewardship of scientific data. He worked inside the federal agency the world has relied upon for weather and climate information, and for years, he says he didn’t recognize what was happening around him.

By the time he did, his concerns had moved well beyond disagreements over climate models or carbon dioxide.

Mabie describes an agency that he believes had gradually changed from the inside, with scientific priorities increasingly influenced by entrenched leadership, bureaucratic power, funding decisions, international interests, and a climate industry worth enormous amounts of money. Some of what finally alarmed him involved something even more fundamental: the scientific record itself.

America has spent decades and enormous amounts of taxpayer money collecting environmental information that allows scientists to study the Earth across generations. Mabie’s responsibilities placed him close to some of those records, including historical scientific data that could never simply be recreated if it disappeared. What he says happened to portions of that scientific history, and what happened when he challenged decisions being made about its future, became an important part of the story he felt compelled to tell.

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny presses him on the question most people outside these institutions would never know to ask: If the climate policies affecting our energy, transportation, infrastructure, economy, and personal choices depend upon scientific data, who is making sure the institutions handling that data deserve our trust?

Mabie’s answer takes the conversation into NOAA’s National Centers for Environmental Information, the transformation of the old World Data Center system, the difference between raw observations and the processed information ultimately presented to scientists and the public, and the safeguards he believes have weakened along the way.

His position also makes this conversation harder to dismiss along familiar political lines.

Mabie acknowledges that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and says the world may be experiencing significant warming. His warning centers on what governments and international institutions do with that science, how research priorities are established, how climate information is processed and preserved, and whether proposed solutions can accomplish what the public is being told they will accomplish.

Then there is peer review.

Most people hear that a scientific paper was “peer reviewed” and assume an independent group of experts thoroughly tested its conclusions. Mabie describes a far less reassuring reality from his own publishing experience, including highly specialized fields where a surprisingly small circle of people can influence which research reaches prestigious journals. His account of what he has witnessed inside that process becomes even more consequential as artificial intelligence begins entering scientific research and publishing.

There are moments in this conversation when Dr. Tenpenny pushes Mabie further than he initially wants to go. Was poor stewardship of historical data simply bureaucracy and incompetence, or could inconvenient information ever be allowed to disappear because it complicates a preferred narrative? Where does legitimate climate science end and political influence begin? Mabie’s answers are careful, sometimes unexpected, and important to hear in his own words.

His book goes much deeper into the people, institutional history, experiences, and reforms behind his conclusions. The interview reveals something different: how someone who spent nearly two decades inside NOAA gradually came to believe that the problems he was witnessing were systemic, why he finally decided to speak publicly, and where he believes the government can still be repaired.

Climate Change Deception is a provocative title. The story behind why a NOAA scientist chose it is considerably more interesting.

Listen to Dr. Justin Mabie’s conversation with Dr. Sherri Tenpenny, then read the book. There is far more behind his warning than can fit into one interview.

Meet our Guest

Dr. Justin Mabie spent 17 years inside the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, working with the scientific information behind weather and atmospheric research while gaining a perspective few people outside the agency will ever have.

His scientific background spans geophysics, space weather, atmospheric and ocean sciences, climate science, and radio-wave propagation. Mabie holds degrees in atmospheric and ocean sciences and physics, has designed and managed advanced radar systems around the world, and served the U.S. government as a senior expert in space weather and aeronomy. He also served as program leader for the United Nations World Data Center in Geomagnetism.

That experience eventually gave Mabie a second education, this one in the inner workings of federal science.

His book, Climate Chan

ge Deception: The Alarming Corruption of Science, grew from what he says he witnessed inside NOAA and his concerns about scientific-data stewardship, entrenched bureaucracy, research funding, peer review, international influence, and the policies being built around climate science.

Mabie brings an unusual perspective to the climate debate because he is willing to acknowledge the science where he believes it supports warming while challenging the institutions, incentives, and proposed solutions surrounding it. That distinction is central to understanding both the man and the warning behind his book.

Link

Book: https://amzn.to/44wun7Q