relic said:

As someone who has studied atmospheric physics & meteorology in general, who has recorded my local weather (wx) phenomenon, precip, temp, etc for the last 40 years, and has helped to refine wording of warning products in concert with NWS personnel, this conversation has been thoroughly exhausting and disheartening to read.

A core mission of the NWS is to accurately & concisely communicate risk to the laypeople of the general public in an easily understood format, thereby building trust for their products in the public sphere. People must trust the NWS products in order for forecasts and warnings to be effective.

The wx community has fought for years against the old tropes about 'aw, the weatherman doesn't know what he's talking about', 'the wxman is NEVER right', etc.  What trump did by undermining an important forecast serves only to work against the development of that very necessary trust in NWS products.

Falcon, trump was wrong to ever mention Alabama at all (unless he did so about five days before his inaccurate tweet).  Having about a ten percent chance of 35 mph wind in a tiny sliver of the state doesn't not in any way constitute a warning about possibly getting hit (much) harder than expected...it served no reasonable, practical, good purpose and only served to work against the forecasts being produced for the hurricane. 

Trump fucked up, the media predictably reacted (over reacted if you want, IDC and that's not the point), and the administration doubled down while further undermining the science being done by the NWS.  It is a big deal only insofar as eroding trust in NWS products that work to save life, limb, and property of Americans and our neighbors.

Fal, you've misread the spaghetti plots and those plots are not part of the official forecast.  It's ok, nobody expects laypeople to understand spaghetti plots and trump is included in that group that's not expected to understand them.  It's unfortunate that our thirst for info and seeming need to manufacture news has made those plots available for public consumption and I suspect this debacle will cause a rethinking of their availability.

In summary, trump was wrong, the media reacted for a gotcha moment causing the very predictable trump to double and triple down, and that should have been the end of it... unfortunately his ego and admin have now assaulted the scientific integrity of NWS personnel and the products they publish which only serves to make it more likely that the public's safety will be compromised in the future.

---

relic said:

trump was wrong to ever mention Alabama at all (unless he did so about five days before his inaccurate tweet).  Having about a ten percent chance of 35 mph wind in a tiny sliver of the state doesn't not in any way constitute a warning about possibly getting hit (much) harder than expected...it served no reasonable, practical, good purpose and only served to work against the forecasts being produced for the hurricane.

---

I appreciate your reply, but 35 mph technically doesn't qualify as tropical storm winds (it's 39-73 mph). 

This debate is about Trump's tweet:  "In addition to Florida - South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, will most likely be hit much harder than anticipated. Looking like one of the largest hurricanes ever. Already category 5. BE CAREFUL!" and whether he deserved the media hammering he got given that he previously had information that Alabama would be hit.  I previously acknowledged that the correction was warranted (also here, and here), but not the follow up media shit storm, in my opinion.

relic said:

Trump fucked up, the media predictably reacted (over reacted if you want, IDC and that's not the point)

---

relic said:

...and the administration doubled down while further undermining the science being done by the NWS.  It is a big deal only insofar as eroding trust in NWS products that work to save life, limb, and property of Americans and our neighbors.

---

relic said:

Fal, you've misread the spaghetti plots and those plots are not part of the official forecast.  It's ok, nobody expects laypeople to understand spaghetti plots and trump is included in that group that's not expected to understand them.  It's unfortunate that our thirst for info and seeming need to manufacture news has made those plots available for public consumption and I suspect this debacle will cause a rethinking of their availability.

---

relic said:

In summary, trump was wrong, the media reacted for a gotcha moment...

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Okay we get it - "lamestream media", "fake news". Now when are you going to acknowledge our point that the Trump administration is flagrantly attempting to make the NOAA and NWS base their reports on political motivations rather than the objective science?

---

Sulfurshelfsean said:

Hw doctored the official forecast. He was trying to change the narrative to match his mistake.

---

Quote:

There followed, last Friday, an unsigned press release from "NOAA" that inappropriately and incorrectly contradicted the NWS forecaster. My understanding is that this intervention to contradict the forecaster was not based on science but on external factors including reputation and appearance, or simply put, political. Our NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy and Code of Scientific Conduct make clear that all NOAA employees shall approach all scientific activities with honesty, objectively, and completely, without allegiance to individuals, organizations, or ideology. The content of this press release is very concerning as it compromises the ability of NOAA to convey life-saving information necessary to avoid substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. If the public cannot trust our information, or we debase our forecaster's warnings and products, that specific danger arises.

You know that the value of our science is in the complexity of our understanding, our ability to convey that understanding to a wide audience of users of this information, and to establish and sustain the public trust in the truth and legitimacy of that information. Unfortunately, the press release of last Friday violated this trust and violated NOAA's policies of scientific integrity. In my role as Assistant Administrator for Research, and as I continue to administratively serve as Acting Chief Scientist, I am pursuing the potential violations of our NOAA Administrative Order on Scientific Integrity.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

We know that Trump displayed a doctored forecast in defence of his claim. We don't know that he was directly involved in the doctoring, but we do know that it was doctored in a way that changed the forcast to support his argument and was directly used by him in this capacity.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

We also know that an unsigned statement released by the "NOAA" is currently being investigated for a breach of policy on scientific integrity. We don't know that Trump ordered or issued the statement, but we do know the unsigned statement claimed that Trump was correct in warning Alabama about hurricane Dorian and the Birmingham office of the NWS was incorrect in stating Alabama would not feel any effects from hurricane Dorian - despite the fact that passage of time has proved the NWS made the correct forcast.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Finally, we know that the actual scientists behind the NOAA and NWS are essentially unanimous in their support of the office of Birmingham. We don't have a public poll (I don't believe), but we do know the NWS employee union head has spoken out against it and that the Acting Chief Scientist of the NOAA has spoken out too. Perhaps you know of some dissenting meteorologists because this looks pretty unanimous to me:

I want to follow by reproducing a passage from the statement released by the Chief Scientist of the NOAA:

Quote:

There followed, last Friday, an unsigned press release from "NOAA" that inappropriately and incorrectly contradicted the NWS forecaster. My understanding is that this intervention to contradict the forecaster was not based on science but on external factors including reputation and appearance, or simply put, political. Our NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy and Code of Scientific Conduct make clear that all NOAA employees shall approach all scientific activities with honesty, objectively, and completely, without allegiance to individuals, organizations, or ideology. The content of this press release is very concerning as it compromises the ability of NOAA to convey life-saving information necessary to avoid substantial and specific danger to public health and safety. If the public cannot trust our information, or we debase our forecaster's warnings and products, that specific danger arises.

You know that the value of our science is in the complexity of our understanding, our ability to convey that understanding to a wide audience of users of this information, and to establish and sustain the public trust in the truth and legitimacy of that information. Unfortunately, the press release of last Friday violated this trust and violated NOAA's policies of scientific integrity. In my role as Assistant Administrator for Research, and as I continue to administratively serve as Acting Chief Scientist, I am pursuing the potential violations of our NOAA Administrative Order on Scientific Integrity.

---

That's a significant amount of direct evidence that someone within the Trump administration is attempting to get the NOAA and NWS to change their reports to reflect Trumps mistake. This should, and apparently is, now being investigated. That's also a significant amount of circumstantial evidence, especially when Trump’s undeniable history as a pathological liar is taken into consideration, that Trump was directly involved.

Still, it doesn't really matter if Trump was directly involved or not, what matters is that an administration that has (literally from day one) shown a flagrant disregard for the truth has taken another step towards an Orwellian post-truth world; and unlike lies about inaugural crowd size, forcing the weather to revolve around Trump will have direct consequences.

But you're so focused on catching the "Lamestream media" in some "TDS" gotcha moment that you apparently can't even see this. How is your behaviour any different than your criticism against the media for missing the real stories in their scramble to mock Trump?

---