NOAA Contradicts Weather Service, Backs Trump On Hurricane Threat In Alabama

[Deuce]

Trump has retroactively changed his claim to “well earlier forecasts said Alabama was potentially in the path” and every single conservative on this message board has bought it. It’s ****in hilarious. His followers are goldfish.

 

[Deuce]

So what?

Isn't it about time to let go of this craziness? Is it really that important?

Trump won’t let it go. He talks about it every day and now has bullied an NOAA staffer into pretending he was right all along. It’s pathetic.

If Trump had dropped it on day one, this would never have been news.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Precisely what many from the forum argued above, only to be called Trump apologists and worse by his haters.

The stuff NOAA released to support Trump's asinine position indicated there was a 5 to 10% chance that a tiny little slice of Alabama might be hit by tropical-storm-force winds (winds exceeding 39mph). For one maybe two of the 40 some-odd forecasts, they forecast a bigger chunk of the state, about half, having a 5 to 10% chance of being hit with tropical-storm-force winds, and also a chance of 20 to 30% of a still smaller slice of Alabama being hit with tropical-storm-force winds.

That doesn't mean Trump was correct and the media was picking on him. That means Trump was almost entirely incorrect. Even if we concede that for one or two days there was a 5 to 10% chance of half of Alabama being hit with tropical-storm-force winds it bears no resemblance to Trump's tweet, nor does it excuse Trump's attempt to lie to the American people by drawing over an official weather map to cover up his mistake.

And, I'm sorry, but Trump and his supporters deserve criticism for not admitting his mistake and continuing to perpetuate his lies.

 

[Bullseye]

Trump won’t let it go. He talks about it every day and now has bullied an NOAA staffer into pretending he was right all along. It’s pathetic.

If Trump had dropped it on day one, this would never have been news.

LOL, I see no proof of any NOAA staffer being bullied. All that page did was provide a link to a collection of forecast maps. Maybe you should stop waiting breathlessly on Trump's every word. Do yourself a favor.

 

[Deuce]

LOL, I see no proof of any NOAA staffer being bullied. All that page did was provide a link to a collection of forecast maps. Maybe you should stop waiting breathlessly on Trump's every word. Do yourself a favor.

You think that staffer wanted to lie for him?

Trumps tweet about Alabama was wrong at the time he tweeted it. It doesn’t matter what a three day old forecast said.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

That scale at the bottom doesn't represent wind speed per color. It represents the probability that the wind speed will exceed 39 mph for the indicated area. Hurricane-force winds are 74 mph. So even the forecasts NOAA referenced in support of Trump -- labeled Tropical Storm Force Wind Speed probabilities -- do not indicate any sort of forecast that a Hurricane would ever strike Alabama, only the dissipated remainder of it, a tropical storm, and only -- for the vast majority of the time the forecasts were published -- a small sliver of Alabama in the far southeastern corner.

So it's not just that Trump was a little wrong, and the media was abusing him, giving him a hard time, and beating up on him for nothing because they "hate" Trump. He was really, really wrong. And then he lied about it, repeatedly, to cover up his mistake.

The series of forecasts NOAA released to support Trump indicated that throughout most of this entire episode a small slice of Alabama risked only a 5% to 10% chance of winds exceeding 39 mph.

"He was really, really wrong. And then he lied about it, repeatedly, to cover up his mistake."

Yup...it's THIS ^^^ especially the repeated lying about it, so that he never appears wrong, or even misinformed, or even mistaken. And then, it's the double down, triple down, quadruple down, quintuple down while STILL wrong.

That...

Anybody can misinterpret a weather map.
Even a meteorologist can.

The difference is, a NORMAL SANE person says "oops, must be an old or outdated map and in any case that's not correct information, or it's not correct anymore."

An INSANE person does what Trump is doing.

An insane person whips out a Sharpie and starts yelling at NOAA weather experts, and keeps at it for almost a week.

 

[Bullseye]

You think that staffer wanted to lie for him?

Or, maybe the staffer was reporting the facts.

Trumps tweet about Alabama was wrong at the time he tweeted it. It doesn’t matter what a three day old forecast said.

So what? Why has this turned into a deranged liberal slobber-slinging contest? What's the big ****ing deal? You guys are completely off the rails. You didn't go this nuts when Mueller struck out or Kavenaugh got approved.

 

[Deuce]

Or, maybe the staffer was reporting the facts.
So what? Why has this turned into a deranged liberal slobber-slinging contest? What's the big ****ing deal? You guys are completely off the rails. You didn't go this nuts when Mueller struck out or Kavenaugh got approved.

What do you mean “so what?” The entire thrust of the right wing hysteria here is “trump was right all along.” He wasn’t. He was working off old information. He obsessed over this so much that he later chose to alter a weather forecast with a framing marker. And today, six days later, he is still obsessing over it.

Liberals aren’t hysterical. We are laughing hysterically. At Trump’s childishness. And at you, quite frankly.

 

[Atomic Kid]

The Director of Communications for NOAA was part of the Trump Campaign and Trump Inaugural Committee.

It would appear then we can be fairly certain where that NOAA statement that apparently no one in the management of the NOAA wanted or were not given the chance to attach their names to came from. Pretty sure Trump got Secretary Ross to lean on her to issue that statement. Not that he would have had to lean that hard anyways since she seems to have all the markings of being a Trump loyalist.

 

[AProudLefty]

Or, maybe the staffer was reporting the facts.
So what? Why has this turned into a deranged liberal slobber-slinging contest? What's the big ****ing deal? You guys are completely off the rails. You didn't go this nuts when Mueller struck out or Kavenaugh got approved.

Why is this a big deal to you? Trump was wrong. So what? Nobody's perfect.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Or, maybe the staffer was reporting the facts.
So what? Why has this turned into a deranged liberal slobber-slinging contest? What's the big ****ing deal? You guys are completely off the rails. You didn't go this nuts when Mueller struck out or Kavenaugh got approved.

No, hold on, it's not anyone else's fault that Trump lied. It's Trump's fault that Trump lied. It's an ordinary, everyday occurence that someone gets upset that another person lied to them. The fact that people are upset Trump lied is not unusual. Therefore, the question is not why are critics of Trump -- which also include moderates, not just liberals -- outraged that Trump lied to the American people; rather, the question is why aren't Trump supporters upset that Trump lied?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Therefore, the question is not why are critics of Trump -- which also include moderates, not just liberals -- outraged that Trump lied to the American people; rather, the question is why aren't Trump supporters upset that Trump lied?

Mass hallucination, that's why. Cult members are incapable of admitting something is very wrong with their cult leader.

 

[rocket88]

:lamo

So Trump ranted and raved and demanded someone release a statement backing his moronic statements and they did. But no one would put their name on it.

:lamo


Of course Republicans don't understand the significance of that and think Trump was vindicated and thus Alabama was in grave danger from Dorian....

:lamo

You mean it's unnamed sources? I thought they were bad!

You're wasting your time. The OP will support the rightness of hus God-King no matter what.

 

[rocket88]

And the Goebbels Media eats crow once again.

So what you're saying is that Trump was ignorant of what the forecasters said since? Interesting....

 

[Sgt Meowenstein]

Really? So you trust the word of the NOAA when it says there's going to be a climate apocalypse, but when it agrees with the president, you call them liars?

The NOAA didn’t agree with Donald; an unnamed person from the NOAA agreed with him.

 

[Bullseye]

Mass hallucination, that's why. Cult members are incapable of admitting something is very wrong with their cult leader.

Yeah, it's we cultist that have been rambling on and on and on about a silly comment. :roll:

 

[Bullseye]

The NOAA didn’t agree with Donald; an unnamed person from the NOAA agreed with him.

Oh, give me a friggin' break. :roll: "an unnamed person" It's on the official website - it speaks with the official voice of the organization.

 

[Minty_fresh]

It's truly amazing how many times Trump has said something that often seems a little bit out there and then is proven correct at a later time.

No nothing has been proven correct later, everything is confirmed BS even later, that's why he NEVER offers anything to back the trash he spews
Who signed their name to this fake report?

 

[Atomic Kid]

Oh, give me a friggin' break. :roll: "an unnamed person" It's on the official website - it speaks with the official voice of the organization.

Did anyone sign their name to it? No. Does the statement come with a letterhead showing the specific NOAA office or person that it originated from? No. Why not?

 

[SkyFox76]

It won't be time to let go of it until Trump says or does something dumb again. Relax, won't take long.


I mean, seriously- he really took a felt pen to a weather map to make himself look good? Does he have no clue at all how he looks? I'd guess not- I'd guess he thinks that he creates reality by just saying it out loud. I'd guess he thinks his followers will just clap their hands together and say, "Well that's settled. Don't his critics look ridiculous now!"

You've got the live version right here on this forum. Arguing that a days old weather map was good enough for current conditions on Sept 1st. They have zero concept of the amount of change that took place, they simply don't care.

 

[AProudLefty]

Oh, give me a friggin' break. :roll: "an unnamed person" It's on the official website - it speaks with the official voice of the organization.

That unsigned page doesn't even show you're right.

 

[SkyFox76]

LOL, I see no proof of any NOAA staffer being bullied. All that page did was provide a link to a collection of forecast maps. Maybe you should stop waiting breathlessly on Trump's every word. Do yourself a favor.

Of course you don't. You could see a video of Trump wailing on some staffer and claim it was just locker room fun. The people that have done and still do this kind of work have made it clear this was an unacceptable statement by whoever this coward is. I have faith he/she be outed and likely need to find a new line of work. Now worries though, Trump has plenty of open positions for a lap dog. The NOAA does not.

 

[Bullseye]

That unsigned page doesn't even show you're right.

Yeah, it does. You're just clinging to this idiot "signed page" bull**** because you have nothing else to stand on. IF you've ever worked for an agency that has a public web page you'd know the website administrator jealously controls who can add or alter pages to the sight and he answered to the head of the agency. Anything that makes it onto that sight is the OFFICIAL WORD of the head of the agency.

 

[Bullseye]

Of course you don't. You could see a video of Trump wailing on some staffer and claim it was just locker room fun. The people that have done and still do this kind of work have made it clear this was an unacceptable statement by whoever this coward is. I have faith he/she be outed and likely need to find a new line of work. Now worries though, Trump has plenty of open positions for a lap dog. The NOAA does not.

LOL, what a pipe of crap. You're so desperate to avoid the facts you're spewing incredible nonsense.

 

[AProudLefty]

Yeah, it does. You're just clinging to this idiot "signed page" bull**** because you have nothing else to stand on. IF you've ever worked for an agency that has a public web page you'd know the website administrator jealously controls who can add or alter pages to the sight and he answered to the head of the agency. Anything that makes it onto that sight is the OFFICIAL WORD of the head of the agency.

Go back and read the page. What dates does it say?