Trump the Needler

[Sam]

Bullcrap.

Let's roll with the medical analogy: if I'm a resident and some hospital administrator sends a mass email to all my patients telling them something I know for a fact is untrue -- like the hospital is at risk of getting hit with an Ebola outbreak three states away that has no chance of showing up in my state, let alone my hospital -- I'm gonna make sure each and every one of those patients knows that's not true.

Because my job is to my patients first and it doesn't matter if the yahoo spouting dangerous nonsense is technically my 'boss'.

--Sam

[Juvenal]

I was going to ask you a serious of questions: like why it has no bearing in the "real world", when it caused meteorologists to be distracted and now has NOAA reversing itself as the Trump Administration forces yet another federal agency to bend to it's will despite pesky things like facts.

To my thinking, this is a break from Trump's standard two-step:

1. Back up into a landmine.
2. Escape into a tank trap.

By which I mean he escapes each old crisis by creating a larger one as a distraction.

He's not trying to escape this time.

Which wouldn't bother me much at this point, except the actual real world consequence is likely to be career disaster for the NWS/Birmingham staffer who contradicted him. That projection has a very long baseline.

[myth]

Okay, so, calmer now and read the new article again.

First: my apologies for getting so angry. I shouldn't have done that - I took my irritation out on you, Myth, and I sincerely apologize.

Second, having reread the material, I think the real problem was Birmingham. Either they got permission to respond to the President, in which case some supervisor is an idiot, or, more likely, they just smarted off. That could be political - B'ham is as blue as it gets, or NWS hires teenagers for its social media work. Either way, B'ham mishandled the situation.

And yes, I'm sure - I have had to tell doctors they made treatment mistakes (because most doctors even now rarely see syphilis cases) and never once did one complain. A few asked for protocol copies - which is perfectly sensible - and all authorized the corrected treatments.

What should have happened is that NWS should have contacted the President's office directly and explained the problem. What happened was B'ham contradicted him publicly - and wasn't even polite about it (this makes me think politics played a role - it's a Southern thing). Hilarity predictably ensues.

And before y'all defend the twerp in B'ham - would you rudely contradict your superior in public?

Thank you for your apology, Teallaura. I also apologize if I was rude or too blunt. I was a little torqued out over what I thought was a false accusation against me. You're normally pretty level headed and I couldn't understand why you seemed so angry. Out of curiosity, did you read the article I linked (there were several linked here, so I'm not sure which ones you read). Here it is, in case you are interested: https://arstechnica.com/science/2019...e-forecasters/

In reference to the 'twerp' in Birmingham -- think about it the other way around, Teal. Just like Sam said. He's a lowly bureaucrat in an obscure government office. Does he publicly contradict the president and risk his job over being accussed of partisanship? Or, if he has any sense...does he risk his own career to publish more accurate information in the interest of public safety? Even the articles I'm readying now say stuff like "NOAA turns against their own scientists", etc....who is more likely to play politics, the federal agency admin most likely to be sacked if the don't play nice with the WH, or the individual scientists who spend their entire career studying weather in order to help protect the public?

Most news articles are reporting that basically Trump used a sharpie, HIMSELF, on a map he posted in his defense. Let's ignore the previous criminal allegation -- does that not just seem a little crazy to you? For clarity, I earlier admitted the chance of the media hoopla actually harming someone was slim -- I'm simply offended that the POTUS would risk that (however slight), because of his need to deceive in order to appear correct.

Trump has a real problem with telling the truth, more than even other politicians. And this coming from a socially conservative who's only ever voted for Republicans (me). Check this out:

Obama's record:
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/

Trumps':
https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

So basically, of the statement's they've examined...60% Trump's statements have ranged from "mostly false" to "pants on fire". We should question literally every word that comes out of his mouth.

[NorrinRadd]

So, returning to the original post...

I'm hearing a lot from some Trump supporters that POTUS intentionally says or does stupid stuff to provoke more TDS. It's like a chess move, is how they describe it. But I don't think this is true, or if it is, how effective a strategy it is. Case in point, Trump's weird defense of the Dorian map ...

I think there are several things at play, and it's not always clear which is predominant at any moment.

-- Sometimes he trolls for his own amusement.

-- Sometimes he posts with purpose, to change the focus of the news.

-- Sometimes he releases whatever odd flatus is floating around in his head.

-- If vexed, he will never just let it drop. He will always respond bigly.

-- And sometimes he will just post relatively normal, mundane stuff.

[Leonhard]

I've seen many instances of Trump saying things that caused a media to blow up and seemed almost made to be vexing. I don't think this is one of those situations.

[Teallaura]

If my job was to inform the public of dangerous weather conditions and if my superior was making a gross misstatement of fact regarding those weather conditions, yes, definitely.

--Sam

Bullcrap.

[rogue06]

An interesting development...

Source: NOAA backs Trump on Alabama forecast, and rebukes Weather Service office that accurately contradicted him

The federal agency that oversees the National Weather Service has sided with President Donald Trump over its own scientists in the ongoing controversy over whether Alabama was at risk of a direct hit from Hurricane Dorian.

In a statement released Friday afternoon, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stated Alabama was in fact threatened by the storm at the time Trump tweeted Alabama would "most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated."

Referencing archived hurricane advisories, the NOAA statement said that information provided to the president and the public between Aug. 28 and Sept. 2 "demonstrated that tropical-storm-force winds from Hurricane Dorian could impact Alabama."

In an unusual move, the statement also admonished its National Weather Service office in Birmingham, Alabama, which had released a tweet contradicting Trump's claim and stating, "Alabama will NOT see any impacts from #Dorian."

The NOAA statement said: "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."

Released six days after Trump's first tweet on the matter, the NOAA statement was unsigned, neither from the acting head of the agency nor any particular spokesman. It also came a day after the president's homeland security and counterterrorism adviser released a statement justifying Trump's claims of the Alabama threat.

The NOAA statement Friday makes no reference to the fact that when Trump tweeted that Alabama was at risk, it was not in the National Hurricane Center's "cone of uncertainty," which is where forecasters determine the storm is most likely to track. Alabama also had not appeared in the cone in days earlier, and no Hurricane Center text product ever mentioned the state.

Trump's tweet that Alabama would be affected by the storm gained national attention Wednesday when he presented a modified version of the forecast cone from Aug. 29, extended into Alabama - hand-drawn using a Sharpie. The crudely altered map appeared to represent an effort to retroactively justify the original Alabama tweet.

The doctored map went viral, becoming a source of ridicule among political pundits and late-night talk show hosts, who accused the president of dishonesty.

Altering official government weather forecasts is actually illegal. Per 18 U.S. Code 2074, which addresses false weather reports: "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 Weather Service is the modern version of the Weather Bureau.)

In the face of criticism about the modified map, Trump fired off additional tweets Wednesday and Thursday, insisting Alabama was at risk all along, including presenting a map from Aug. 29 depicting a small possibility that Alabama would see tropical-storm-force winds.




Source

© Copyright Original Source

Story continues at link provided


ETA: I see Teal already mentioned this.

[Sam]

Okay, so, calmer now and read the new article again.

First: my apologies for getting so angry. I shouldn't have done that - I took my irritation out on you, Myth, and I sincerely apologize.

Second, having reread the material, I think the real problem was Birmingham. Either they got permission to respond to the President, in which case some supervisor is an idiot, or, more likely, they just smarted off. That could be political - B'ham is as blue as it gets, or NWS hires teenagers for its social media work. Either way, B'ham mishandled the situation.

And yes, I'm sure - I have had to tell doctors they made treatment mistakes (because most doctors even now rarely see syphilis cases) and never once did one complain. A few asked for protocol copies - which is perfectly sensible - and all authorized the corrected treatments.

What should have happened is that NWS should have contacted the President's office directly and explained the problem. What happened was B'ham contradicted him publicly - and wasn't even polite about it (this makes me think politics played a role - it's a Southern thing). Hilarity predictably ensues.

And before y'all defend the twerp in B'ham - would you rudely contradict your superior in public?

If my job was to inform the public of dangerous weather conditions and if my superior was making a gross misstatement of fact regarding those weather conditions, yes, definitely.

--Sam

[Teallaura]

Okay, so, calmer now and read the new article again.

First: my apologies for getting so angry. I shouldn't have done that - I took my irritation out on you, Myth, and I sincerely apologize.

Second, having reread the material, I think the real problem was Birmingham. Either they got permission to respond to the President, in which case some supervisor is an idiot, or, more likely, they just smarted off. That could be political - B'ham is as blue as it gets, or NWS hires teenagers for its social media work. Either way, B'ham mishandled the situation.

And yes, I'm sure - I have had to tell doctors they made treatment mistakes (because most doctors even now rarely see syphilis cases) and never once did one complain. A few asked for protocol copies - which is perfectly sensible - and all authorized the corrected treatments.

What should have happened is that NWS should have contacted the President's office directly and explained the problem. What happened was B'ham contradicted him publicly - and wasn't even polite about it (this makes me think politics played a role - it's a Southern thing). Hilarity predictably ensues.

And before y'all defend the twerp in B'ham - would you rudely contradict your superior in public?

[Sam]

Useful chart here. By Sept. 1, NHS had all but removed AL from the forecast cone.

ED0aMhsWsAAYB1f.jpg

[Teallaura]

Thanks for finally commenting my actual point, even though it was like pulling teeth to get it out of you, and your comment was a curt dismissal with no actual argument beyond an unsupported assertion of a fact. Also, thanks for repeating yourself again. Saying it for like the 8th time is sure to convince me, especially when it's a poor argument. But you keep on doing you. People getting the weather from the White House? When did I say that? Exactly, I didn't, you're just saying random stuff again.

YOU said this:

What a disgrace. His cavalier treatment of the truth caused confusion an distraction as multiple states prepared for a major emergency. And now, he can't even admit he made a mistake, let alone apologize for it. I'm so angry that I had to vote for this morally-depraved idiot.

If anyone is curious about the details of this incident, I found a good article written by a meteorologist. https://arstechnica.com/science/2019...e-forecasters/

*emphasis mine

It DID NOT HAPPEN. Nothing happened - as I have stated repeatedly - that in any way substantiates the above statement.

Broadcasting the map caused NO discernible 'confusion an distraction' (sp).

I was going to ask you a serious of questions: like why it has no bearing in the "real world",

No panic or official actions occurred as a direct result of the 'broadcast'.

when it caused meteorologists to be distracted

Now someone correcting a simple error is a distraction?

and now has NOAA reversing itself

While providing documentation that in fact supports Trump's claim.

as the Trump Administration forces yet another federal agency to bend to it's will despite pesky things like facts.

If the pesky facts refute Trump, where'd they get the pesky documentation.

Also, considering how this is another reason why voters (including people who voted for Trump like myself) can't trust anything at all he says.

Because what, you won't even consider he might have had a reason - or he's just supposed to be infallible?

I was going to ask how, as a Christian, you seem to have such unabashed support for Trump?

How does 'maybe he wasn't completely airheaded' translate to unabashed support? Literally the only valid argument I've seen in weeks was an aside between KG and Sam. Otherwise, it's been an endless parade of 'orange man bad'. He literally gets criticized for every nonsense thing in the book - but NOTHING on policy.

Yes, I get Roe v. Wade, it's why I voted for him....but do we really have to always defend him despite obvious blunders?

Only those of us who think fairness is a good idea.

But it's very difficult to argue with you when you spend all your time repeating yourself, attacking straw men, and ignoring the very things I'm saying in the first place. Kinda hard for the discussion to go anywhere, don't you think? Unless you want to pay attention to the issues at hand and have a real discussion, I'll be withdrawing form arguing with you about this any further.

I answered what you said - quoted above. I repeated myself because you seem to think that evidence contrary to your assertion does not exist. It's no strawman - it's the counter argument to what you said and reaffirmed in this post.

The reason there was no discernible confusion and distraction was because we don't get our weather from the WH - your 'confusion and distraction' depends on the WH, which is effectively calling us morons, which is what started this.

[Sam]

Mentioned that earlier; no one, anywhere, disputed that at one point in time, Alabama was in the hurricane projection cone. By the time Trump tweeted that Alabama would "most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated", however, AL was almost completely outside of even the <10% tropical storm wind cone and the hurricane was pretty clearly turning north in a way that would remove AL from the cone entirely within hours (which is what happened). At no point during the day of Trump's tweet was there a projection that Alabama would most likely be hit, and much less than any such "hit" would be harder than expected.

But such is the way of Trump's lies and misstatements and how he adjusts them after the fact, often pulling other people into the disgrace. Would be good to see who, exactly, at NOAA wrote and directed that statement.

--Sam

Not that it matters to anyone but:

Source: Fox News

Weather agency now backs Trump, says Dorian could have impacted Alabama

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Fox News

In an unsigned statement, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said that "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 advisories in question were dated from Wednesday, Aug. 28 to Monday, Sept. 2, the agency said.
The statement points to a few graphics issued by the National Hurricane Center to support Trump's claims. The maps show percentage possibility of tropical storm force winds in the United States. Parts of Alabama were covered, usually with 5 percent to 10 percent chances, between Aug. 27 and Sept. 3. Maps on Aug. 30 grew to cover far more of Alabama, but for only 12 hours, and the highest percentage hit 20 percent to 30 percent before quickly shrinking back down.

© Copyright Original Source

*emphasis mine

Which will be dismissed as political, despite documentation.

[Teallaura]

Not that it matters to anyone but:

Source: Fox News

Weather agency now backs Trump, says Dorian could have impacted Alabama

© Copyright Original Source

Source: Fox News

In an unsigned statement, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said that "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 advisories in question were dated from Wednesday, Aug. 28 to Monday, Sept. 2, the agency said.
The statement points to a few graphics issued by the National Hurricane Center to support Trump's claims. The maps show percentage possibility of tropical storm force winds in the United States. Parts of Alabama were covered, usually with 5 percent to 10 percent chances, between Aug. 27 and Sept. 3. Maps on Aug. 30 grew to cover far more of Alabama, but for only 12 hours, and the highest percentage hit 20 percent to 30 percent before quickly shrinking back down.

© Copyright Original Source

*emphasis mine

Which will be dismissed as political, despite documentation.

[myth]

No. One. Gets. Weather. From. The. White. House.


None of the negative effects you postulated happened, because

No. One. Gets. Weather. From. The. White. House.




*emphasis mine

Unless the public actually takes it seriously - which it didn't because WH - this makes no difference. I got it - but it had no real world bearing.

Thanks for finally commenting my actual point, even though it was like pulling teeth to get it out of you, and your comment was a curt dismissal with no actual argument beyond an unsupported assertion of a fact. Also, thanks for repeating yourself again. Saying it for like the 8th time is sure to convince me, especially when it's a poor argument. But you keep on doing you. People getting the weather from the White House? When did I say that? Exactly, I didn't, you're just saying random stuff again.

I was going to ask you a serious of questions: like why it has no bearing in the "real world", when it caused meteorologists to be distracted and now has NOAA reversing itself as the Trump Administration forces yet another federal agency to bend to it's will despite pesky things like facts. Also, considering how this is another reason why voters (including people who voted for Trump like myself) can't trust anything at all he says.

I was going to ask how, as a Christian, you seem to have such unabashed support for Trump? Yes, I get Roe v. Wade, it's why I voted for him....but do we really have to always defend him despite obvious blunders?

But it's very difficult to argue with you when you spend all your time repeating yourself, attacking straw men, and ignoring the very things I'm saying in the first place. Kinda hard for the discussion to go anywhere, don't you think? Unless you want to pay attention to the issues at hand and have a real discussion, I'll be withdrawing form arguing with you about this any further.

[NorrinRadd]

No, the map he showed was a later map issued with the Alabama part visually added in a different tone - with one aide confirming it was his handwriting.

It's not a stupid controversy. Altering a weather map is a federal offense. Weren't you just arguing in the other thread that the rule of law requires prosecution of crimes?

Changing the map was silly.

Making a literal Federal case of it is asinine.

If what Trump (or whoever) did literally IS a Federal crime, it is just one more sign that we need to shut down the government and do a hard reboot. Or do without it at all.