Latest news with #Sharpie-gate
Yahoo
04-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
I live in hurricane territory. Trump slashing NOAA puts lives at risk.
In July 1970, when he was proposing the creation of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, President Richard Nixon wrote to Congress, 'We face immediate and compelling needs for better protection of life and property from natural hazards, and for a better understanding of the total environment — an understanding which will enable us more effectively to monitor and predict its actions, and ultimately, perhaps to exercise some degree of control over them.' If you live in hurricane territory, as I have most of my life, then you know that the ability to predict when and where 'natural hazards' might happen has life and death consequences. And you also know it's reckless for President Donald Trump (or is it Elon Musk?) to be haphazardly slashing the agency that does that important work. How many more people might have died during Hurricane Katrina, for example, if the National Weather Service, an office of the NOAA, hadn't issued what's been called a 'doomsday' warning. How many people might die in the future if these cuts in personnel — 800 as of Thursday afternoon — degrade the agency's ability to predict deadly weather and warn those who are at risk? Bringing NOAA to heel was an expressed goal of Project 2025 (the Heritage Foundation's de facto blueprint for Trump's second term), which has described the agency as 'one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry.' Slashing NOAA's workforce, then, is Trump putting American lives at risk to own the libs. 'Libs,' in this context, means anybody who dares report what climate data shows. In that sense, the move is reminiscent of 'Sharpie-gate.' On Sept. 1, 2019, as Hurricane Dorian moved across the Atlantic Ocean, Trump tweeted that Alabama was among the states that 'will most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated.' Ten minutes later the National Weather Service office in Birmingham, reportedly responding to needlessly panicked Alabamans, tweeted, 'Alabama will NOT see any impacts from #Dorian.' And Alabama wasn't impacted. Even so, Trump altered a map with a black marker rather than admit he'd been wrong regarding the latest news of the storm's potential path. While it obviously wasn't the most significant scandal of Trump's first term, 'Sharpie-gate' stands out as one of his more cartoonish attempts to portray himself as the expert on all things and to retaliate against those who do have the relevant knowledge. What do you think the National Weather Service should have done? Inform people who weren't at risk that the president was wrong — or remained cravenly silent? You won't have to guess Trump's position. Then-acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney sent Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross an after-hours email saying 'it appears as if the NWS intentionally contradicted the president. And we need to know why. He wants either a correction or an explanation or both.' NOAA's communications chief later told the Commerce Department inspector general's office that she'd been told by a Commerce Department official that 'there are jobs on the line. It could be the forecast office in Birmingham. Or it could be someone higher than that.' Five days after the Sept. 1 tweets, the NOAA issued an unsigned statement: '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.' That may have satisfied Trump's ego. But it was an embarrassing capitulation for an agency we should expect to prize facts over the president's feelings. After an investigation, the Commerce Department's inspector general concluded, 'Instead of focusing on NOAA's successful hurricane forecast, the Department unnecessarily rebuked NWS forecasters for issuing a public safety message about Hurricane Dorian in response to public inquiries — that is, for doing their jobs.' In case you'd forgotten Trump's modus operandi, the first few weeks of his second administration should have reminded you. One of the overarching themes of this term is the meaningless of expertise. Not only has Trump staffed his Cabinet with people who lack the experience and qualifications to perform their jobs, but he has also been ridding the federal workforce of people who do have experience and qualifications. It seems that in every situation, if Trump has a choice between hiring someone who knows what they're doing but doesn't grovel before him, and someone who grovels but doesn't know what they're doing, he's going with the groveler. Even if it leaves the United States and its people worse off. Slashing the staff of NOAA because the agency has published data about climate change isn't going to stop Americans from suffering the brunt of climate change. It will only mean the United States government is abdicating its responsibility to do something about it. And if those cuts impact the National Weather Service, then we already know what might happen. Forecasts of life-threatening weather risk becoming less about data and more about whatever satisfies Trump. This article was originally published on
CBS News
08-02-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Former top NOAA scientist under Trump issues a "Sharpie-gate" warning
The former top government scientist during President Trump's first term in office has a cautionary tale to tell about the politicization of science. It involves Neil Jacobs, Mr. Trump's nominee to lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Jacobs, who led the agency on an acting basis during Mr. Trump's first term, was reprimanded for ethics violations in what became known as "Sharpie-gate" — when the president held up a hurricane forecast map with black marker appearing to extend the storm's potential path into Alabama. Craig McLean served during Mr. Trump's first term as acting chief scientist of NOAA, which monitors the health of the oceans and the warming of the climate, and runs the National Weather Service, which issues weather warnings. In his first interview, McLean told CBS News many scientists "are worried about President Donald Trump's return to office — after he undermined science in his first term." "Folks realize that they may be in for a storm," said McLean. McLean said he feels that way partly because of what happened in early September 2019. The National Weather Service said a storm, Hurricane Dorian, would move up the Atlantic coast. Mr. Trump tweeted that Alabama was in the storm's path. It wasn't. Twenty minutes later, the National Weather Service in Alabama accurately tweeted, "Alabama will NOT see any impacts from #Dorian." Three days later in front of cameras, Mr. Trump held up a week-old map that was altered with a black marker to portray the hurricane's path as if it had initially been headed for Alabama, as he tweeted. "That was the original chart," Mr. Trump said. "It was going to hit not only Georgia but Florida. It was going toward the Gulf." The controversy became known as "Sharpie-gate." Two days later, without McLean's knowledge, the leadership at NOAA released a statement backing Mr. Trump and criticizing the work of the weather forecasters. "To have a political process unplug the public's trust, that got me stirred," McLean said. "That gave me a sense of rage." McLean demanded investigations. According to a report by a panel of the National Academy of Public Administration for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and a U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General report about the incident, the investigations concluded that the statement backing Mr. Trump was "driven by external political pressure," through a "request from the White House then-Acting Chief of Staff," and that Jacobs, the head of NOAA who has been nominated again, "violated the Code of Ethics for Science Supervision and Management set forth in Section 7.01 of NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy when they failed to engage the Birmingham WFO in the development of the September 6 Statement." The National Academy report said: "Further, the Panel finds that they engaged in misconduct intentionally, knowingly, or in reckless disregard of the Code of Scientific Conduct or Code of Ethics for Science Supervision and Management in NOAA's Scientific Integrity Policy." According to the inspector general report, Jacobs felt pressured. "In Dr. Jacobs's view, he could make the statement more accurate, but the Department would issue, or would cause NOAA to issue, a statement one way or another," the report said. "If he resigned or were fired, he reasoned, the final statement likely would have been worse and more inflammatory." CBS News reached out to Jacobs for comment, but has not yet received a response. A spokesperson for NOAA said it does not comment on nominations and has no contact with nominees until they are confirmed. McLean requested NOAA's top leaders acknowledge the investigative findings. Shortly after, he was relieved of his position. McLean stayed on with NOAA, in another position, and eventually retired. McLean has a stark message about hurricane warnings. "People's lives are on the line," McLean said. But NOAA's science is about more than hurricane warnings. It underpins how corporations and insurance companies predict the ever-growing risks of climate disasters and helps farmers choose the best time to plant as weather patterns shift. Project 2025, which has served as a roadmap for the new administration, calls on Mr. Trump to "break up NOAA." The White House did not reply to questions sent by CBS News. During nomination hearings for Howard Lutnick, Mr. Trump's pick to lead the Commerce Department — which oversees NOAA, Lutnick said he does not support breaking up NOAA. Project 2025 claims NOAA is "one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry." McLean said there's cause for alarm. "We're required by law to give the full picture, and if there's a reason to not be alarmist, what is that," McLean said. "What we're seeing is alarming, is very alarming."
