First, a bit of context:

I have been fighting for ten years now to advance the situation of Météo-France. Ten years that I have had more or less regular exchanges with internal teams, cordial, constructive and mutually appreciated exchanges. Ten years also that I work at the level of the state to make things evolve. You can, for example, read The report that we wrote at the request of the Élysée. For years I have been asking to meet the management of Météo-France to alert them. I had also been able to meet the previous directors, with divergent visions – certainly – but in good agreement.

I therefore took advantage of a response to the communication of accounting elements which I had requested, to request an appointment:

I take advantage of this exchange to suggest that we meet to discuss MF's strategy in terms of public data. I could also share my experience with you as the first broadcaster of public Météo-France data (daily volume twice that of your services).

This in a constructive spirit. This is a long-term subject, on which I had already discussed with your predecessors. We could also invite Messrs. Carrière and Desponds with whom I have been able to have regular discussions on the subject.

My email has gone unheeded...

It was only after several weeks and, for lack of having been able to discuss the subject in private, after a twitter thread recounting an absolutely incredible situation, that finally I got an answer:

Hello sir,

given your repeated and denigrating public criticism of Météo-France, a meeting does not appear likely to produce constructive results.

cordially

Christophe MOREL
—

Strategy Director
Meteo France

So here is my answer. Some will criticize me for being too direct – to those, I will answer that it has been 10 years since the other methods have had their effect. This response, regardless of whether it is accepted or not by its recipients, will at least have the merit of raising awareness.

RE: RE: RDV Lawsuit

Copy to Ms. Virginie Schwarz, CEO of Météo-France

Mr Morel

I apologize, but my repeated criticisms are only a reflection of the serious dysfunctions of your institution.

You find them denigrating, I find them factual.

Definition of denigrating: Attacking someone's reputation, discrediting, talking maliciously about something or someone; slander.

I'm not attacking your reputation. I am only alerting to the situation, which is extremely worrying. Someone has to do it for things to change.

Is it malicious to want to help you, for 10 years, to share your data under correct conditions, while running up against the total disconnection of decision-makers? Should we stand still and say nothing while the ship sinks?

My alternative server is a striking example of this: today I distribute twice what you distribute. Why do you think users prefer this service at my place rather than on your servers? A private individual does what the institution cannot do. We've been talking about it for 7 years. The problem would be solved with hosting at 1000€ per month. 1000€ per month! You don't even need a tender. Less than a week of work. Why do we even have to discuss it? In 2019, I even made you a formal proposal to accompany you on the implementation of this solution – for a ridiculous cost, then even on a voluntary basis.

Who discredits? Me, or the institution that charges 128 times the market price for a premium service “which corresponds to the cost of using the bandwidth between the facilities of Météo France and the internet network”.

Who discredits? Me, or the institution that prevents access to soil moisture data, using spurious motives, even though the country is going through an unprecedented drought situation and these data do not generate any income.

Who discredits? Me, or the institution that sells its observations so expensive that public authorities find themselves forced to rely on amateur stations to manage the drinking water supply of the population.

Who discredits? Me, or the institution that boasts that meteorology impacts 25% of GDP, while being the latest public institution to charge royalties on its data, royalties representing 0.5% of its budget.

Who discredits? Me, or the institution that does not comply with the GDPR and basic IT security practices on a large audience site such as meteofrance.com, and that does not take the 10 minutes necessary to correct it when asked REMARK.

Who discredits? Me, or the institution that had a major outage, for the simple fact both of its DNS servers were hosted on the same network, in defiance of industry recommendations, for such a critical service.

Who discredits? Me, or the institution that is not even damned to transfer its data reliably to IRSN, for the protection of the country in the event of a major nuclear accident.

No. It is Météo-France which is discrediting itself. This is where the drama lies. The list is still long. But is it really worth continuing this exposition? Like for 10 years, I've been talking to a wall.

Some of your teams agree with me, are convinced by my cause and support me. "but it's higher than that is decided", as they say. The "highest" is you and your predecessors. It is directly you who bear the responsibility.

Even when Météo-France filed a complaint against me in 2015 – a complaint so ridiculous that it made the gendarmerie officer who received me laugh and was obviously dismissed – even there, your teams indicated at the end of the complaint that they wanted to continue working with me.

The services of the Prime Minister, the Elysée and the magistrates of the Court of Auditors come to consult me ​​on the subject.

But, a priori, my remarks would not be relevant enough for the main interested party that you are. Maybe it's better that way. Continue your in your blindness.

By refusing to grant me an interview, you are only perpetuating the current situation. But whatever. Do the ostrich. Everything's good. You will leave the ship in a short time, being named elsewhere, like your predecessors, leaving the scars of a short-term strategy. Strategy of senior civil servants, mining engineers, enarques and polytechnicians, the results of which can only be seen at La Poste or the SNCF.

No. I do not agree. Météo-France must be a source of national pride. 10 years that I fight for it, and I will continue to fight. I was there before you and I will be there after you. You have the best research teams, you have the best technicians, you have the best science. The potential is there. But it's your politics that destroys all that.

Take the example of our neighbours: the whole industry relies on data from the American NOAA and now from the German DWD.

Check out popular apps like Windy.com: there are global models from NOAA, DWD, UK Met Office, European Center. But where is ARPEGE? Is it so bad, I do not think. Where is the influence of your institution? So yes, you will tell me, there is AROME. But who worked with them to provide them from the start? I will let you guess…

Because, when the state wants to cut budgets – apparently it's fashionable – who will come to defend Météo-France? Who, besides yourselves? Who will mourn the loss of “this service which lives with our taxes and which wants us to pay for everything”.

You will be told that you have to save money and that you have to turn off ARPEGE. Why fund it? It's expensive and we can use the European model, like our neighbours. You will be told to stop the development of the excellent Meso-NH and AROME. What's the point of financing them, since we can use open codes resulting from a worldwide collaboration, such as WRF. You will be told that you have to remove stations, because private operators are able to deploy denser networks and sell them to you at a lower cost than yours. You will be told that you have to remove the radars, that startups like HD Rain will hypothetically deploy cheaper and more precise solutions. We will tell you that in any case we have satellites which provide us with more numerous and denser observations... And not only EUMETSAT, moreover, including private players such as Spire or soon SpaceX, in a booming sector . Remember who your emerging competitors are. Monsanto bought The Climate Corporation for one billion euros. IBM has invested heavily. Do you want to disappear in favor of the future GAFA of the weather? Your neighbors at IGN have suffered these problems before you. They finally begin to understand and react. Follow their example.

If tomorrow, a Donald Trump decides on a whim to close the American weather service, the whole industry will collapse and will be able to support them. Can the same be said for Météo-France, from whom even public authorities must buy services?

Your only way to survive is to make yourself indispensable. To make yourself indispensable by massively disseminating your data, doing it well and actively working to take center stage in the industry. To save the institution, to save the jobs of your teams, to save our national sovereignty.

I don't mince my words. But the situation is serious, much too serious.

I leave you to your denial.

cordially

Nicolas