• Michael
    8k


    NOAA’s support of Trump over its own scientists provokes uproar in weather community

    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.”

    And the President did in fact use a sharpie to alter the official forecast which didn't have Alabama within the cone of uncertainty. That's the key issue here: not that his initial statement was wrong; that he's doubling down on his initial wrong statement and falsifying evidence (in this case illegally) to try to save face. He's utterly incapable of admitting to having made a mistake.
  • Benkei
    2k
    And that, in the end, is what makes him a terrible leader. Instead of fixing mistakes, they're compounded or covered up. If that's the culture you're projecting one can only imagine the consequences in the long run.
  • NOS4A2
    581


    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?

    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
    581


    You can see the data with your own two eyes. Don’t let the WaPo and former Obama admin holdovers tell you what you need to think. Look at the data. It clearly shows a probability that Alabama was going to be hit. Trump was right.

    https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2019/DORIAN_graphics.php?product=wind_probs_34_F120
  • Michael
    8k


    11480614-3x2-940x627.jpg

    Here's the map that Trump was using. You can clearly see that he used a sharpie to alter it.
  • NOS4A2
    581


    That was an old and outdated map. It was irrelevant at the time it was shown, as is evident by the update that followed. Not only that, but by that time that particular forecast was way off.
  • unenlightened
    3.9k
    Is this really a thing? Who's better at weather forecasting, the president or the weather forecasters? And my dad could beat your dad at tiddlywinks! Even if your dad has a bigger moustache!
  • ArguingWAristotleTiff
    3.5k
    And my dad could beat your dad at tiddlywinks! Even if your dad has a bigger moustache!unenlightened

    Interesting twist on a "Your Momma Joke"! I like it un, I like it! :party:
  • NOS4A2
    581


    It is a thing. It’s a non-scandal perpetrated by the press in the US. It’s quite shameful.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    6k
    Yes, actually, because you can see the data yourself with your own two eyes.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.

    It is a thing. It’s a non-scandal perpetrated by the press in the US. It’s quite shameful.NOS4A2

    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.
  • NOS4A2
    581


    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.

    There was also a 90-100% chance it would hit Florida. No hurricane there either.

    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.

    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.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    6k
    There was also a 90-100% chance it would hit Florida. No hurricane there either.NOS4A2

    The map shows the probability of tropical storm force winds, which Florida did receive. I believe Florida also receive some hurricane force winds as well as a large storm surge.
  • Michael
    8k
    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

    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.
  • Echarmion
    630
    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

    I can indeed. Can you see why the National Wheather service thought it necessary to respond to Trumps tweet that Alabama would be "hit (much) harder"?
  • NOS4A2
    581


    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.

    I’m not goin* to pretend I am a weatherman, but The context is a twitter dispute between Trump and the press, the biggest non-scandal in recent memory. What’s missing from the context is the White House’s response to Hurricane Dorian, which was exemplary.

    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. This quibbling proves enough to distract the petulant press and their base from actual states of affairs.
  • Michael
    8k
    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

    That's not spin; that's the story. Trump was wrong in saying that Alabama was likely to be hit harder than expected and then tried to defend his mistake by using a sharpie to doctor an official (and outdated) forecast. The ridiculous attempts that Trump will go to to avoid admitting to having made an error is newsworthy.
  • NOS4A2
    581


    The national weather service was wrong that it would hit Florida. The difference is, Trump is not a weatherman and was only relaying information given to him. I see no issue with Trump defending himself and his staff from a belligerent press on this matter. Meanwhile, CNN literally switched Mississippi and Alabama on one of it’s maps, literally deceiving it’s viewers with fake news.
  • frank
    3.1k
    They're calling it Sharpie-gate
  • Michael
    8k
    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.
  • NOS4A2
    581


    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.

    That is fake news. They altered the names of the very states at risk of the hurricane, perhaps to maintain their narrative. They only changed it because they got busted.

    Another assumption is that the NWS was responding to Trump, and not to, say, the calls of concerned citizens.
  • Maw
    1.5k
    Hey folks NOS$A2 is a dumbass who is dragging out this conversation because he enjoys the taste of Donald Trump's boot in his mouth too much. Time to move on.
  • Wayfarer
    8.2k
    Yeah, I think the Dems should 'impeach and be damned'. Even if it's true that the Senate (or is it Congress) will then vote to acquit, there's no way Trump's flagrant violations of both the law and constitutional norms should be allowed to go unchallenged.
  • Benkei
    2k
    what? You want him reelected? If he survives impeachment procedures it means in the eye of the public that he didn't do it.
  • Wayfarer
    8.2k
    what? You want him reelected? If he survives impeachment procedures it means in the eye of the public that he didn't do it.Benkei

    To hell with it. That is 'politics over principle'. He must face impeachment. I don't see how the Dems can face their electorates without bringing impeachment, not to do so is to give Trump an even bigger win. If Mitch McConnell rejects the impeachment finding, then let it be on GOP heads.
  • Benkei
    2k
    To hell with it. That is 'politics over principle'. He must face impeachment. I don't see how the Dems can face their electorates without bringing impeachment, not to do so is to give Trump an even bigger win. If Mitch McConnell rejects the impeachment finding, then let it be on GOP heads.Wayfarer

    That's not politics over principle. That's employing politics to reach the principled goal of removing an unfit president. If they lose the election, they can always try to impeach after that. If you try to impeach and lose, you have obtained neither the presidency nor his removal.
  • Wayfarer
    8.2k
    We’ll see. Momentum is building for impeachment.
  • Benkei
    2k
    Great. If that's the case then it will be a horrible case of inexperience compounded by impatience.
  • Wayfarer
    8.2k
    Justice ought not to be avoided simply because a case might not result in conviction. I think the dems are duty bound to make the case to the 'american people' even if said people are too stupid to understand what's good for them.
  • Benkei
    2k
    I didn't say never, I said, wait until after the presidential election.

    Edit: Also a nice example of the elitist bullshit that has people that "are too stupid to understand what's good for them" vote for Trump.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.