SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
President Donald Trump brandishes a graphic during an Oval Office briefing on the status of Hurricane Dorian in Washington, D.C. on September 4, 2019. (Photo: Bill O'Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images)
Citing 'Danger to Public Safety,' Chief NOAA Scientist Launches Probe Into Agency Decision to Side With Trump Over Its Own Experts on Dorian
"This intervention to contradict the forecaster was not based on science but on external factors including reputation and appearance, or simply put, political."
Sep 09, 2019
The acting chief scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration informed colleagues in an email Sunday that he is launching an investigation into the agency's decision to side with President Donald Trump over its own scientists by issuing an unsigned statement backing Trump's claim that Hurricane Dorian posed a serious threat to Alabama.
Craig McLean told NOAA staff that the agency's decision to contradict the National Weather Service (NWS)--which corrected the president's erroneous assertion just 20 minutes after he first tweeted it last Sunday--was "political," a "danger to public safety," and possibly a violation of NOAA's ethics rules.
"Politics must be kept out of science, and science must play a role in good policy. This is a step toward restoring that balance after the Trump administration has tried, relentlessly, to destroy it."
--Peter Gleick, climate scientist
"The NWS Forecaster(s) corrected any public misunderstanding in an expert and timely way, as they should," McLean wrote in an email obtained by a Washington Post. "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."
McLean went on to call the content of the agency's unsigned statement "very concerning," warning that "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," said McLean.
Climate scientist Peter Gleick applauded the probe, tweeting that "politics must be kept out of science, and science must play a role in good policy."
"This is a step toward restoring that balance after the Trump administration has tried, relentlessly, to destroy it," said Gleick.
The investigation comes after NOAA's press release defending Trump prompted a furious response over the weekend from scientists and others both inside and outside the agency.
Dan Sobien, president of the National Weather Service Employees Organization, the union that represents 4,000 NOAA employees, said Friday that his members were left "shocked, stunned, and irate" by the agency's statement.
"Never ever before has their management thrown them under the bus like this," Sobien told The Daily Beast. "These are the people risking their lives flying into hurricanes and putting out forecasts that save lives. Never before has their management undercut their scientifically sound reasoning and forecasts."
Trump sparked further outrage--and ridicule--last Wednesday by doubling down on his claim that Dorian posed a threat to Alabama. As Common Dreams reported, the president presented a government map that was altered by a Sharpie to include Alabama in the area threatened by Hurricane Dorian.
As the Post noted, doctoring government weather forecasts is against the law.
The Post highlighted 18 U.S. Code 2074, which reads: "Whoever knowingly issues or publishes any counterfeit weather forecast or warning of weather conditions falsely representing such forecast or warning to have been issued or published by the Weather Bureau, United States Signal Service, or other branch of the government service, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both.'"
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The acting chief scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration informed colleagues in an email Sunday that he is launching an investigation into the agency's decision to side with President Donald Trump over its own scientists by issuing an unsigned statement backing Trump's claim that Hurricane Dorian posed a serious threat to Alabama.
Craig McLean told NOAA staff that the agency's decision to contradict the National Weather Service (NWS)--which corrected the president's erroneous assertion just 20 minutes after he first tweeted it last Sunday--was "political," a "danger to public safety," and possibly a violation of NOAA's ethics rules.
"Politics must be kept out of science, and science must play a role in good policy. This is a step toward restoring that balance after the Trump administration has tried, relentlessly, to destroy it."
--Peter Gleick, climate scientist
"The NWS Forecaster(s) corrected any public misunderstanding in an expert and timely way, as they should," McLean wrote in an email obtained by a Washington Post. "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."
McLean went on to call the content of the agency's unsigned statement "very concerning," warning that "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," said McLean.
Climate scientist Peter Gleick applauded the probe, tweeting that "politics must be kept out of science, and science must play a role in good policy."
"This is a step toward restoring that balance after the Trump administration has tried, relentlessly, to destroy it," said Gleick.
The investigation comes after NOAA's press release defending Trump prompted a furious response over the weekend from scientists and others both inside and outside the agency.
Dan Sobien, president of the National Weather Service Employees Organization, the union that represents 4,000 NOAA employees, said Friday that his members were left "shocked, stunned, and irate" by the agency's statement.
"Never ever before has their management thrown them under the bus like this," Sobien told The Daily Beast. "These are the people risking their lives flying into hurricanes and putting out forecasts that save lives. Never before has their management undercut their scientifically sound reasoning and forecasts."
Trump sparked further outrage--and ridicule--last Wednesday by doubling down on his claim that Dorian posed a threat to Alabama. As Common Dreams reported, the president presented a government map that was altered by a Sharpie to include Alabama in the area threatened by Hurricane Dorian.
As the Post noted, doctoring government weather forecasts is against the law.
The Post highlighted 18 U.S. Code 2074, which reads: "Whoever knowingly issues or publishes any counterfeit weather forecast or warning of weather conditions falsely representing such forecast or warning to have been issued or published by the Weather Bureau, United States Signal Service, or other branch of the government service, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both.'"
The acting chief scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration informed colleagues in an email Sunday that he is launching an investigation into the agency's decision to side with President Donald Trump over its own scientists by issuing an unsigned statement backing Trump's claim that Hurricane Dorian posed a serious threat to Alabama.
Craig McLean told NOAA staff that the agency's decision to contradict the National Weather Service (NWS)--which corrected the president's erroneous assertion just 20 minutes after he first tweeted it last Sunday--was "political," a "danger to public safety," and possibly a violation of NOAA's ethics rules.
"Politics must be kept out of science, and science must play a role in good policy. This is a step toward restoring that balance after the Trump administration has tried, relentlessly, to destroy it."
--Peter Gleick, climate scientist
"The NWS Forecaster(s) corrected any public misunderstanding in an expert and timely way, as they should," McLean wrote in an email obtained by a Washington Post. "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."
McLean went on to call the content of the agency's unsigned statement "very concerning," warning that "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," said McLean.
Climate scientist Peter Gleick applauded the probe, tweeting that "politics must be kept out of science, and science must play a role in good policy."
"This is a step toward restoring that balance after the Trump administration has tried, relentlessly, to destroy it," said Gleick.
The investigation comes after NOAA's press release defending Trump prompted a furious response over the weekend from scientists and others both inside and outside the agency.
Dan Sobien, president of the National Weather Service Employees Organization, the union that represents 4,000 NOAA employees, said Friday that his members were left "shocked, stunned, and irate" by the agency's statement.
"Never ever before has their management thrown them under the bus like this," Sobien told The Daily Beast. "These are the people risking their lives flying into hurricanes and putting out forecasts that save lives. Never before has their management undercut their scientifically sound reasoning and forecasts."
Trump sparked further outrage--and ridicule--last Wednesday by doubling down on his claim that Dorian posed a threat to Alabama. As Common Dreams reported, the president presented a government map that was altered by a Sharpie to include Alabama in the area threatened by Hurricane Dorian.
As the Post noted, doctoring government weather forecasts is against the law.
The Post highlighted 18 U.S. Code 2074, which reads: "Whoever knowingly issues or publishes any counterfeit weather forecast or warning of weather conditions falsely representing such forecast or warning to have been issued or published by the Weather Bureau, United States Signal Service, or other branch of the government service, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ninety days, or both.'"
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.