NOAA violated ethics rules to defend Trump during SharpieGate

[essentialsaltes]

LINK

Top officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association violated its ethical standards and scientific integrity policy when it issued a statement contradicting a local National Weather Service office during Hurricane Dorian in 2019, a scientific misconduct investigation determined.

During Dorian's approach to the United States last year, President Donald Trump showed members of the media an image of the storm's potential path, which included a marker drawing in an area of Alabama.

Responding to calls of concern, the National Weather Service's Birmingham, Alabama, office tweeted out, "Alabama will NOT see any impacts from #Dorian. We repeat, no impacts from Hurricane #Dorian will be felt across Alabama. The system will remain too far east."

But on September 6, NOAA released a statement saying, "The information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center to President Trump and the wider public demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama. ... The Birmingham National Weather Service's Sunday morning tweet spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time."

Now, a new memo laying out the final decision on three allegations of misconduct says that an independent panel investigating NOAA leadership's actions during the storm's approach violated the agency's ethical and scientific standards.

 

[miamited]

Hi ES,

Yes, now we have some idea of what it was like to live in communist Russia in the day. When truth wasn't really based on any objective reality, but merely the order of the party.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[Aryeh Jay]

Hi ES,

Yes, now we have some idea of what it was like to live in communist Russia in the day. When truth wasn't really based on any objective reality, but merely the order of the party.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Ted,

I see absolutely no connection with the Communist Soviet Union. First of all, they believed in suppressing the rights of citizens, homosexuals, religions, and ethnic minorities. Second, they would have no qualms about sending the Armed Forces to suppress people who disagreed with the government. Third, the Communist Russians were all about walls, did you ever hear of the “Iron Curtin” or Berlin Wall? Forth, the Soviet Union chose RED as their color, the international color of Communism/Socialism and authoritarian regimes. And fifth, the Communist Soviet Union would lie in the news and not report the truth with disasters or other calamities.

 

[TLK Valentine]

LINK

Top officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association violated its ethical standards and scientific integrity policy when it issued a statement contradicting a local National Weather Service office during Hurricane Dorian in 2019, a scientific misconduct investigation determined.

During Dorian's approach to the United States last year, President Donald Trump showed members of the media an image of the storm's potential path, which included a marker drawing in an area of Alabama.

Responding to calls of concern, the National Weather Service's Birmingham, Alabama, office tweeted out, "Alabama will NOT see any impacts from #Dorian. We repeat, no impacts from Hurricane #Dorian will be felt across Alabama. The system will remain too far east."

But on September 6, NOAA released a statement saying, "The information provided by NOAA and the National Hurricane Center to President Trump and the wider public demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama. ... The Birmingham National Weather Service's Sunday morning tweet spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time."

Now, a new memo laying out the final decision on three allegations of misconduct says that an independent panel investigating NOAA leadership's actions during the storm's approach violated the agency's ethical and scientific standards.

Ever notice how many people in power have to violate ethical, moral, or legal standards in order to defend Donald's words or deeds?

Just seems to me that it's happening a lot these days...

 

[Brightmoon]

Bush Jr started that nonsense. He would cause scientists at NASA to suppress information about global warming . Threatening them with termination and causing them change info that was told to the public . I guess the staff at NOAA didn’t want to be bullied like that and did what the bully wanted. There really is a Republican war on science.

 

[miamited]

Ted,

I see absolutely no connection with the Communist Soviet Union. First of all, they believed in suppressing the rights of citizens, homosexuals, religions, and ethnic minorities. Second, they would have no qualms about sending the Armed Forces to suppress people who disagreed with the government. Third, the Communist Russians were all about walls, did you ever hear of the “Iron Curtin” or Berlin Wall? Forth, the Soviet Union chose RED as their color, the international color of Communism/Socialism and authoritarian regimes. And fifth, the Communist Soviet Union would lie in the news and not report the truth with disasters or other calamities.

Hi aryeh,

Ok. When I said that we were getting a taste of what it was like in communist Russia. I didn't mean absolutely everything about their lives. For instance, we've never had grocery stores with empty shelves except for some few government rationed items. There are a lot of things about communist Russia that we haven't experienced...yet. We haven't yet been told what to produce and how many of them to produce...yet.

However, as regards this issue of people being punished for not sticking to the 'party line'? In that one single issue, we are getting a taste of what that would have been like. But if you don't see it because not everything is like it was in communist Russia, well, that's ok with me.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

 

[jardiniere]

Ted,

I see absolutely no connection with the Communist Soviet Union. First of all, they believed in suppressing the rights of citizens, homosexuals, religions, and ethnic minorities. Second, they would have no qualms about sending the Armed Forces to suppress people who disagreed with the government. Third, the Communist Russians were all about walls, did you ever hear of the “Iron Curtin” or Berlin Wall? Forth, the Soviet Union chose RED as their color, the international color of Communism/Socialism and authoritarian regimes. And fifth, the Communist Soviet Union would lie in the news and not report the truth with disasters or other calamities.

Man, that is the best snark I've read in a very long time.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Far below in quotes is from the article posted by the OP.

I googled NAPA and got an auto parts store. So I had to google the National Academy of Public Administration. Would anyone like to take the time to convince me that this panel from this non profit group I saw online is correct and the two officials from NOAA are incorrect? Was NOAA wrong stating that the regional office was not scientifically accurate to tweet something out "in absolute terms" rather than in probabilities? If there is only a .001 % chance that something happens one cannot say absolutely that it will not happen. Can we view this totally apart from any emotional like or dislike for a politician and look solely at the facts? Would the tweet have been better if it had been " The chances of hurricane Dorian hitting any part of Alabama are so slim we advise those in the state to be confident they will not be affected. " ? I an no meteorologist so I don't know for sure but I think it is common in the field to never pin oneself down to any absolute " No it can't happen" statement. However, I am willing to hear that my impression is a mistaken one.

The Group from the National Academy of Public Administration insists that NOAA ought to have included the Tweeters from Alabama in deciding if the tweet was accurate or not. The officials in charge of the response to the tweet believe that would be a poor way to critique something as the person that authored a tweet is unlikely to be objective about it. I am leaning in the officials direction on that point but I am not unmovable.

"Both Jacobs and Roberts argued that they did not violate NOAA's scientific integrity policy.
In hisafour-page response, Jacobs argued that the National Academy of Public Administration, the panel presiding over the investigation, never questioned or refuted "the scientific veracity of the actual statement" from September 6. He also wrote that the panel took "an overbroad approach" to the application of the policy, arguing that the statement does not fall under the scientific activity to which the policy is intended to apply.
"Using NAPA's interpretation, all social media posts, including tweets, that referenced any NOAA employee's work would have to be reviewed by the scientist who completed the initial or previous work," Jacob said."

 

[MIDutch]

It was a Sharpie.

Ostensibly supporting an unfounded statement by the "meteorologist-in-chief".

I'm guessing that anyone of any reasonable intelligence could already see that it was a comedy routine in the making. Any "official" pronouncement affirming the validity of the
grasping at straws" illustration were only going to add to the hilarity.

In the overall scheme of things this is an irrelevant event in current history other than to illustrate the lengths government officials will go to to apease trump.

 

[grasping the after wind]

It was a Sharpie.

Ostensibly supporting an unfounded statement by the "meteorologist-in-chief".

I'm guessing that anyone of any reasonable intelligence could already see that it was a comedy routine in the making. Any "official" pronouncement affirming the validity of the
grasping at straws" illustration were only going to add to the hilarity.

In the overall scheme of things this is an irrelevant event in current history other than to illustrate the lengths government officials will go to to apease trump.

Despite what he and those that are obsessed with him may think, everything that happens is not about Trump. A meteorological organization should adhere to certain standards. Using a statement of certitude instead of probabilities is the standard NOAA officials criticized the Alabama office for not upholding. One can assume a lot of things if one is determined. Some will assume that the people in the Alabama office wanted to embarrass Trump. Others will assume the NOAA officials wanted to appease Trump. My opinion is that the Alabama office wanted to reassure the citizens in its area and that the NOAA officials wanted to uphold a certain standard. Trump's inadequacy as a weather forecaster was not the major factor. But anyone can assume anything they please to assume.

 

[essentialsaltes]

A final Inspector General report was expected on Monday, but Secretary Ross of Commerce has been holding it up.

The inspector general for the Commerce Department sent a memo to Secretary Wilbur Ross on Wednesday evening expressing “deep concern” that the department is infringing on the office’s independence by preventing the release of a final report on the investigation of a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration statement about Hurricane Dorian in 2019.

The memo by Peggy Gustafson was posted to the Office of the Inspector General’s website in what marks a rare public airing in a dispute between an agency inspector general and a Cabinet secretary. The focus of the impasse, Gustafson writes, is the department’s assertion of a broad claim of privilege that would exclude publication of certain material in the report, which began 10 months ago.

The main conclusions of the report are already publicly known as Gustafson, an appointee of President Barack Obama, posted a summary of the findings, dated June 26, late Monday night:

Our conclusions, in brief, are the following:

1. The Department led a flawed process that discounted NOAA participation.
   
2. The Department required NOAA to issue a Statement that did not further NOAA’s or NWS’s interests.
   
3. The Department failed to account for the public safety intent of the NWS Birmingham tweet and the distinction between physical science and social science messaging.
   
4. One NOAA employee deleted relevant text messages, and the Department’s federal records guidance is outdated.
   

 

[Tom 1]

Hi ES,

Yes, now we have some idea of what it was like to live in communist Russia in the day. When truth wasn't really based on any objective reality, but merely the order of the party.

God bless,
In Christ, ted

Exactly, the only difference being that the NOAA was a bit hesitant. I suppose the shock factor of having a man baby in charge hurts the first time you have to bend to the ego.

 

[essentialsaltes]

LINK

The Commerce Department inspector general issued a delayed and harshly critical report laying out how political pressure originating from the White House resulted in the issuance of a poorly crafted and unsigned National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) statement on Sept. 6, 2019.

That statement backed President Trump’s erroneous claims that Hurricane Dorian was likely to severely impact Alabama and criticized the agency’s own meteorologists.

That statement, the inspector general found, damaged NOAA’s reputation for issuing apolitical guidance and eroded public trust in an agency tasked with protecting life and property. The report, however, contains no recommendations for punishing officials or major changes to department policies and procedures.

[The initial disconnect between Trump's tweets and the NOAA forecast] culminated with the president displaying an NOAA hurricane forecast map altered with a Sharpie during a storm briefing in the Oval Office, which earned the scandal the name “Sharpiegate.”

The episode foreshadowed subsequent Trump administration science controversies, including the White House’s repeated dismissals of public health advice for responding to the coronavirus pandemic.

According to the inspector general’s report — which does not include redactions, not even for presidential privilege — then-acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney instructed Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross on Sept. 5 to have the public record corrected in favor of the president, and Mulvaney and Ross were involved in the statement approval process.