Trump wrote on Twitter on Sept. 1 that Alabama would be among
U.S. states that would "most likely be hit (much) harder than
anticipated" by Hurricane Dorian, then one of the most powerful
Atlantic storms on record.
Within minutes, the National Weather Service (NWS) office in
Birmingham, Alabama, responded by saying that Alabama would not
see any impacts from Dorian.
After days of controversy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), part of the Commerce Department headed by
Wilbur Ross, released a statement on Sept. 6 saying the
Birmingham tweet was "inconsistent with probabilities from the
best forecast products available at the time."
A report conducted on NOAA’s behalf by a panel set up by the
non-partisan National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA),
found the NOAA's acting administrator, Neil Jacobs, and its
former deputy chief of staff and communications director, Julie
Kay Roberts, violated the agency’s scientific integrity policy
with the statement.
In a memo posted along with the report on the NOAA's website,
Stephen Volz, the NOAA official responsible for scientific
integrity, said the NAPA panel found the pair did so
"intentionally, knowingly, or in reckless disregard" of the code
of conduct.
In his memo, Volz said Jacobs and Roberts did not believe it was
a good idea to release a statement, but "felt significant
external pressure to do so."
The controversy became known as "Sharpiegate," after Trump
displayed a modified NOAA map to depict the storm threatening
Alabama.
The New York Times reported last year that Ross threatened to
fire top employees after the Birmingham office contradicted
Trump and that then acting White House chief of staff Mick
Mulvaney had directed Ross to order the NOAA to disavow the NWS
tweet.
In a statement on the NOAA website responding to the NAPA
report, Jacobs said its analysis was based on the premise that
either Trump’s tweet, or that from the Birmingham office was
right, and the NOAA was choosing between the two, which was not
the case.
"NAPA never questions or refutes the scientific veracity of the
actual statement," he said.
In a letter posted on the NOAA site, Roberts said the panel had
failed to "provide the complete picture of what occurred and the
contextual factors that played a role in the statement issued on
September 6."
The NOAA's acting director of communications, Scott Smullen,
said it welcomed the NAPA report and its recommendations, which
"would strengthen the policy of consulting NOAA scientists in
developing communications materials involving their expertise."
"Scientific integrity is at the core of NOAA’s work and is
essential for maintaining the public’s trust in the agency’s
ability to provide accurate, thorough and timely science," he
said.
(Reporting by David Brunnstrom; Editing by Grant McCool and
Michael Perry)
[© 2020 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2020 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content.
|
|