The NOAA has confirmed that Trump was in fact correct. — NOS4A2
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s decision to back President Trump instead of its own scientists on the question of whether Alabama was at significant risk from Hurricane Dorian has led to widespread outrage in the broader weather community.
Weather forecasters inside and outside the government and former leaders of NOAA and the National Weather Service have spoken out against the NOAA action.
Late Friday afternoon, NOAA released a statement siding with Trump’s Sept. 1 assertion that Alabama “would most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated” by Hurricane Dorian, even after its own National Weather Service office in Birmingham had accurately tweeted: "Alabama will NOT see any impacts from #Dorian.”
The unsigned NOAA release, attributed to an agency “spokesperson,” specifically rebuked the Birmingham office, stating it “spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available.”
The American Meteorological Society, the professional association of atmospheric scientists and weather forecasters, issued a statement of support for Weather Service employees. " AMS believes the criticism of the Birmingham forecast office is unwarranted; rather they should have been commended for their quick action based on science in clearly communicating the lack of threat to the citizens of Alabama," the statement said.
Many critics say NOAA’s decision to back Trump is putting politics before facts and undermining forecasters’ ability to carry out their mission to protect life and property, while eroding public trust. They also worry about how the statement will affect Weather Service forecasters’ morale.
Three former NOAA heads have expressed this concern. Kathryn Sullivan, a former NASA astronaut who ran the agency under President Barack Obama, said that throughout NOAA’s history, the agency — including its political appointees — has committed "to not let any political factors sway the scientific credibility and clarity of Weather Service forecasts and warnings.”
She stated: “The anonymous and disingenuous statement NOAA tweeted out is a major breach of scientific integrity that damages the NWS and stains the agency’s leadership.”
Jane Lubchenco, who preceded Sullivan as NOAA administrator under Obama, told Capital Weather Gang via email: “This looks like classic politically motivated obfuscation to justify inaccurate statements made by the boss. It is truly sad to see political appointees undermining the superb, life-saving work of NOAA’s talented and dedicated career servants.”
I can guarantee you that no-one who isn't already a die-hard Trumpist will believe that. It's very obvious from this side of the ideological divide that someone in the NOAA caved to political pressure.
For you, on the other hand, it's further vindication of the idea that there is a witch hunt.
The question is, do you think there is any way these two versions of reality can ever be reconciled?
And my dad could beat your dad at tiddlywinks! Even if your dad has a bigger moustache! — unenlightened
Yes, actually, because you can see the data yourself with your own two eyes. — NOS4A2
It is a thing. It’s a non-scandal perpetrated by the press in the US. It’s quite shameful. — NOS4A2
Hmm, a 5 -20% probability of tropical storm force winds in the extreme south east corner of Alabama, no hurricane there. No wonder it wasn't included in the forecast.
The problem is that when the president issues a warning, you'd expect people to take heed. But if the president is always crying wolf, just to watch people get excited, then there's a problem.
There was also a 90-100% chance it would hit Florida. No hurricane there either. — NOS4A2
That’s not true. His updates on Dorian were very sober and informative, especially regarding the government’s response. But you actually have to view them in their context. — NOS4A2
Yes, actually, because you can see the data yourself with your own two eyes.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2019/DORIAN_graphics.php?product=wind_probs_34_F120 — NOS4A2
The context is that Trump tweeted on Sunday that Alabama would most likely be hit much harder than anticipated, the National Weather Service corrected Trump's mistake by stating that Alabama would not be hit, and then NOAA spokesman Christopher Vaccaro reaffirmed this by stating that the "current forecast path of Dorian does not include Alabama".
Trump, being Trump, couldn't let it go, and so on Wednesday produced a doctored graphic of the forecast and falsely stated that there was a 95 percent chance of Dorian impacting Alabama – in actuality the forecast had an 11% chance of topical force storm winds (weaker than hurricane force), with outdated graphics showing 20 - 30% chance of these tropical force storm winds.
All the anti-Trump press have to spin the story is a sharpie mark on an outdated map and the inclusion of Alabama in a tweet. — NOS4A2
Meanwhile, CNN literally switched Mississippi and Alabama on one of it’s maps, literally deceiving it’s viewers with fake news. — NOS4A2
No, they made a mistake which they then admitted to and promptly fixed. That's not fake news.
Fake news is Trump using a sharpie to doctor an official forecast in an attempt to defend his own mistake. He should have just admitted to being wrong (or even just misinformed) and accepted the National Weather Service's correction. This wouldn't be a story if Trump could just behave like a sensible President.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.