A newly cast meteorologist shared his experience, challenging the main climate narrative, and the strong opposition that followed. -CCD Editor
Over the weekend, Sam Zeff, a reporter from KCUR, an NPR branch in Kansas City, told me on X: “You've wasted your money.” [emphasis, links added]
I am a recent college graduate with a meteorological degree. Zeff answered my post on social media, noting that he and other climate activists ignore basic scientific facts when blaming man-made climate change for the tragic flooding in Texas.
The truth is that rainfall and flooding along the Guadalupe River is not unprecedented in history and has nothing to do with climate change, if any. There has been no increase in heavy rain and river flooding in rural Texas Mountains over the past six decades.
So let's discuss the floods in Texas.
Here are the facts of many democratic whistles that some traditional media choose to ignore:
1⃣The National Weather Service (NWS) office in Austin/San Antonio has five meteorologists throughout the storm. pic.twitter.com/7g2pvwrqcr
— Chris Martz (@chrismartzwx) July 6, 2025
In understanding the weather, Texas’ devastating deaths remind people of the importance of weather and accurate science. This is not the time to start politics or blame from the left or right hand.
As a trained meteorologist passionate about truth, I can tell people with authoritative authority that flooding is not caused by cloud seed seeds or “chemistry.”
But when I also tried to explain the data to social media users on the left, showing them that there was no evidence that climate change caused or exacerbated floods in Texas, the conversation quickly turned into an insult or even a threat.
Indeed, the ridicule of NPR reporters and others who mocked me for my education became very familiar.
I found myself being insulted, organized efforts to kick me out of school, and even occasionally death threats.
After one of my posts on X about climate change became popular last year, I accidentally became an online influencer.
It was never my career plan; I was always the type of person who had conversations between friends and avoided the spotlight.
But when I started posting information about hard science on social media, and it told us about climate change theory and energy policy, I found myself insulted, organized efforts to kick me out of school, and even occasionally death threats.
I first became interested in high school meteorology and signed an X account so that I could connect with professionals in the field. When I first started publishing, I was an assistant to the movement, thinking that climate change was entirely man-made.
However, as I do more research, my perspective begins to develop and become more subtle. Over the years, as my X posts increasingly challenged orthodox ideas around climate change, the replies I got became more agile and attacks became more personal.
Throughout the college period, university officials were tagged in (mostly) anonymous accounts X comments and imposed a force on them to leave school.
More importantly, my professor receives emails from attackers almost every week saying I am a shame for meteorological programs and should be punished for spreading what is called “misinformation.”
Other critics will get personal photos from my family’s social media accounts to decorate my posts.
A viral tweet I posted last June was about me entering the stratosphere. It has attracted more than 2.5 million views and over 30,000 likes:
This is my story.
I've been studying climate change for over six years and am so interested in it that I decided to pursue a meteorological degree that I completed next year.
When I first started this journey, I started as a mainstream leisure believer…
— Chris Martz (@chrismartzwx) June 9, 2024
The post details my experience, trying to find the truth about climate change and encounters the reality that freedom of speech can be subject to persistent and ugly attacks if it challenges certain precious left-wing reasons.
In terms of climate, unpopular statements (even based on undisputed scientific facts) are marked as “error,” “misleading” or “misinformation” by the loudest sounds in the room.
When a culture celebrates the “for me, but not for you), there is a serious problem in the United States, as the late Nat Hentoff put it.
Today, it is difficult to find a believer with free speech like Hendorf. Today, liberal thinkers don't get along with some third-level topics (often not caring about race, gender, or climate), incorporate it into a fierce opposition, not only to keep their voices silent, but to crush them.
I was told that scientific methods are used to test hypotheses and theories for finding the truth against data.
I began to learn that the sulfuric acid targeted me is because, my age is probably no one will actively challenge the belief system in the climate and have facts and demands answers.
I was told that scientific methods are used to test hypotheses and theories for finding the truth against data.
But many young people’s beliefs are attracted by the belief that humans have brought the apocalypse through artificial carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, and every weather event is its result, no matter what the data and historical records actually show.
In schools, this narrative of anthropogenic climate change that causes catastrophic damage is taught in schools. Leading news organizations invest in the “climate team” to continuously fill news loopholes with unilateral reports.
That's why I'm one of the favorite targets for climate fanatics. I'm young, I have a new voice, I'm New York Post Call me, “Anti-Greta-Tunberg.”
It's an interesting perch to witness and participate in climate debates. On the one hand, climate alarms are threatened by the fact that I used to be with them, but now, based on research and research, I reject their position.
They don't like that I'm good at making charts and data analytics and can use humor to encourage people to re-view data and disaster prediction models that consistently get it wrong when running backwards across historical weather data.
On the other hand, climate experts and respected professionals in the field will send me regular messages and tell me to keep fighting well. These include high-profile meteorologists with decades of experience in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and leading universities, who secretly admit that they cannot threaten their careers by clamoring.
In my last semester of college, I began to think that all the rebound was not worth continuing the battle. But, as a senior TV meteorologist told me, someone has to do it.
Someone must speak for the right thing – In the United States, we must protect our ability to believe in our beliefs and publicly debate theories, otherwise we will lose that right.
The tragedy of the Guadalupe River shows that meteorology is a serious matter. Let us not let politics, junk science or unchallenged orthodoxy get in the way.
Chris Martz is the latest graduate of Millersville University, with a bachelor’s degree in meteorology and is a policy analyst for the committee’s constructive tomorrow.
Originally published in free beacon
