Hurricane Dorian "Sharpiegate" Violated Integrity Rules

Last year's Sharpiegate scandal was a warning that "alternative facts"
over real science could have dangerous consequences. We certainly
learned that this year.

Yes, I'm back to Sharpiegate, that moment last year that seems so long ago when President Trump falsely said Hurricane Dorian would affect Alabama, and later showed a map altered with a Sharpie that falsely suggested the hurricane had been forecast to hit that area.

New reporting this week shows that NOAA officials violated science integrity rules when scrambling to incorrectly back up Donald Trump's wrong statement last year that Hurricane Dorian would blast Alabama, among other things.

In the grand scheme of things, Sharpiegate seems so insignificant now with the nation's botched Covid-19 response killing people and the Black Lives Matter movement highlighting the stain of racism and police brutality in the United States.

However, Sharpiegate is important in a way because it shows how Trump's sycophants prioritize the "need" to massage Trump's super needy ego at the expense of truth, sound policy, and in this case, science.  As we've learned since, ignoring science can be deadly.

This whole thing with what happened last year should have been a small forgettable gaffe that all presidents make.  In the run up to dangerous Hurricane Dorian, Trump included Alabama in a list of states that could be affected.

Very early forecasts had suggested just that, but in the days leading up to Trump's' words, Alabama was off the table. That state would escape Dorian scot-free.

Due to panicked messages they were receiving after Trump spoke, the Birmingham office of the National Weather Service issued a statement saying that Dorian would not affect the state.

A normal president would have then said, "Oopsie, I had bad information. Turns out Alabama's fine," then dropped the whole thing. From there, everybody would have moved on.

But no, not Trump. He always seems ready to waste lots of precious time, resources and reputation to claim he is always right, evidence be damned.

So we had Sharpiegate

The latest report, via Gizmodo and many other media outlets, is this:

"Internal documents supposedly showed that Tim Gallaudet, NOAA's deputy administrator, nor Neil Jacobs, the acting NOAA administrator, had authorized the press release backing Trump - instead, the order apparently came from Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who issued threats to fire Jacobs and other top NOAA officials. Per the Washington Post, an inquiry conducted on NOAA's behalf by the nonprofit National Academy of Public Administration now finds Jacobs and NOAA deputy chief of staff/director of communications Julie Roberts committed at least two violations of scientific integrity rules in issuing the statement claiming NWS Birmingham was wrong. 

The report also concluded that neither official commited a violation when they issued media guidance that limited NOAA scientists from speaking openly to the media about the matter. But Jacobs and Roberts 'intentionally, knowingly or in reckless disregard,' violated conduct and ethics sections of the NOAA Scientific Integrity Policy twice: First by refusing to let scientists in Birmingham review the statement pre-publication, and then sending it out and "compromising NOAA's integrity and reputation as an independent scientific agency."

Of course, this won't matter very much for the people involved, since apparently nobody is facing consequences for these violations. Typical in this administration.  Everybody seems to do whatever they want, regardless of legality and ethics. No wonder there are howls of protest against this administration echoing across the United States.

When Sharpiegate first erupted last year, I said this would erode trust in science, facts and policy when more serious issues came along.  And sure enough, Covid came on the scene, and once again, people who should know better are creating "alternate facts" to appease Trump's little mind.

This time, though, unlike Sharpiegate, millions of lives are at stake and there have already probably been thousands of needless deaths.

Sharpiegate was a warning to the nation about how dangerous this administration is.  We should have listened.

Are We "Weather Porn" Addicts? And Is That A Bad Thing?

There's nothing inherently wrong with viewing
images like this tornado in Moore, OK, but..... 

Lately, if you really want to create a storm in the meteorological  community, just bring up the term "weather porn."  

And this storm has nothing to do with wind, rain, snow or destruction. But maybe it does have a little to do with hot air.  Or not. You decide.

What precipitated (ha!) this latest kerfuffle among weather geeks was a recent article by David Bauder, a television writer for the Associated Press.

He noted that the evening news, and lots of other news sources are loaded up with weather stories.

This, Bauder seemed to argue, had as much to do with ratings as news value. After all, people are attracted to dramatic images of extreme weather. Weather porn, if you will.

I've always freely admitted that some of what I post on this here weather and climate blog thingy is weather porn.

Hey, I'm just as much a fan of weather porn as the next guy or gal, even as I know I also have a responsibility to offer sober stuff, non-hyped stuff, not sensationalism

I really don't see the harm in weather porn, at least in moderation.

What really drew a negative reaction, and I can see why, is a source for Bauder's story characterized ABC News meteorologist Ginger Zee as a "pornographer."

Here's news consultant Andrew Tyndall, quoted in Bauder's piece:

"If Ginger Zee reported in the role of climatologist rather than meteorologist, I would praise ABC's 'World News Tonight's' decision as a daring intervention into a crucial national and global debate.....Instead, she is more like a pornographer."

I, as a weather geek and journalist, and many outspoken meteorologists, have real problems with Tyndall's quote.

First of all, Ginger Zee has proven herself to be a highly capable, accurate and good meteorologist and journalist.

Also, implicit in the Tyndall quote is an assumption that maybe every news story that even touches on weather ought to be sounding alarms on global warming.

.....when we're done watching the dramatic tornado video,
it's time to help people like this. (Photo by Sue Ogrocki, AP)   

It's true journalists really have a duty to spread as much accurate information on climate change as possible.

But not every news story, not every weather story warrants an exhaustive examination of global warming.

If a storm is an immediate threat, if a tornado, hurricane, flood, blizzard, snow storm, ice storm, cold snap or heat wave is threatening a city, a region or a country, those potentially affected want to know what's up with this particular crisis. And how to protect themselves.

One the storm passes, that would be a good time to examine whether global warming had a role in the disaster or really bad weather.

Additionally, it's a necessary public service when people like Ginger Zee describe for us the implications and hazards of a storm or extreme weather.

That said, it's also true that TV networks and other media outlets love, LOVE showing footage of extreme weather. Frankly so do I.

I openly refer to wild, dramatic videos and photos of tornadoes, hurricanes and the like as "weather porn." People get off on it. I do, too.

Of course, this enthusiasm for "weather porn" gives me some serious pangs of guilt, and should for everyone who enjoys weather porn.

The people who were killed in that storm left behind grieving loved ones. The houses that were destroyed belonged to someone. The lives that were uprooted by the severe weather will never be the same.

I like to think our addiction to weather porn has a good side. That maybe it inspires us to help those who were victimized by dangerous weather. That it makes us lobby for better structural standards, and zoning to keep people from building in hazardous places.

I'd also like to think all these images of severe weather prompts us to become activists against climate change.

That's the hope, anyway.

The power of nature is thrilling, awe-inspiring, deadly, tragic and incredibly vivid.  I will continue to be a fan of weather porn, and I'm sure a lot of other people will, too.  

I just hope we don't sit back and do nothing once we've finished watching that video of an EF-5 tornado destroy a pleasant Great Plains small town.

Storm Chasing: Good Entertainment, Life Saving Or Unethical?

Writing in Slate, Eric Holthaus has a provocative notion: Storm chasing is unethical.   

Storm chasing tourists near Bennington,
Kansas in 2013.

Maybe, he suggests, all those people running around the Great Plains in specialized vehicles, converging by the hundreds of dramatic supercells and tornadoes, are doing more harm than good.

Holthaus raises some good points.

One of his main concerns is that storm chasers are not saving lives by providing warnings. National Weather Service radar has gotten so good you almost don't need spotters verifying whether a tornado has touched down.

Instead, there is now the opposite risk. So many chasers converge on one storm that it crowds small, rural roads with photographers. That makes it hard for emergency vehicles to pass, said Holthaus.

In my opinion, it could trap the chasers, too, if the tornado turns on them and a traffic jam prevents chasers from getting out of the way.

Holthaus is also queasy about chasing for profit, by selling photos, video and tour seats, gives more incentive to take risks near tornadoes to document the most drama and thereby make the most money. He also is understandably sickened by viral videos in which you see and hear chasers just totally getting off on a tornado, and meanwhile, somebody might be dying in a house being hit by the twister.

The idea of chaser ethics got renewed attention from Holthaus and others this past week when one chase, having taken videos of a giant double tornado destroying much of the town of Pilger, Nebraska.

Moments after the town was devastated, he snapped a photo of a dying five year old girl who had just been pulled from the rubble. The photo went viral.

It sparked a debate: Was in exploitive, or did it show the reality of how a tornado can totally destroy lives and create unspeakable tragedies?

As Gawker's Dennis Mersereau wrote, the same photographer wrote weeks earlier that he wanted to see "some highly destructive tornadoes to make it rain for me financially."

The Pilger photographer made money off the tornado, and the death of the little girl. But he is also contributing money for the girl's funeral expenses. What do you make of all this?

As you might expect, Holthaus' article got a lot of response from storm chasers and others. To Halthaus'  credit, he linked to his critics on his Twitter feed.

Writing in his blog, Ben Cotten (@FunnelFiasco) said maybe Holthaus paints too broad a brush with his comments.

"The issue here is that in the age of social media, it's easier for the bad eggs to stand out. It's easy to find chasers behaving stupidly, sometimes they even get their own cable shows. The well-behaved chasers, by their very nature tend not to be noticed,"  Cotton wrote.

 James Samenow of The Capital Weather Gang also chimed in, correctly noting that chasers are often the first on the scene of a tornado disaster and often rescue people.

Storm chasers took this photo after twin tornadoes
trashed the town of Pilger, Nebraska. Then chasers
then participated in search and rescue. 

He noted how chaser Chad Cowan and other chasers rescued people trapped in wrecked houses after a tornado ripped through Wessington Springs, South Dakota last week.

However, in Cowan's account of the rescue, many other chasers in the area did not join in the rescue. However, chases Brandon Ivey and Marcus Gutierrez did help.  

Many professions have a code of conduct. There might be an informal one in storm chasing. I wonder if we can create a climate where a code of conduct is enforceable, and clear cut, in the storm chasing business.

In other words, can a code of conduct drub bad actors out of the chasing gig, while encouraging the ethical, helpful ones?  

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with chasing tornados, running chasing tours and selling images and videos for fun and profit.

But some sort of formal code among chasers might help. The code could dictate that chasers drop everything and help endangered or injuried people they encounter. Many chasers already do this, (that's why tornado chase videos often abruptly cut out when a newly destroyed house comes into view. The chasers are trying to help the people inside.)

However, some chasers don't help others.

Sometimes chasers get in the way of emergency responders, or put themselves in too much danger trying to get that dramatic shot. I wonder if they could be fined severely, to make it financially hurt.

Ther have been proposals to fine hikers and skiers who act recklessly in the winter wilderness of New England   

What about storm chasers who get in trouble?

Then we have to talk about storm chase consumers, like me. Anyone who reads this blog knows I'm an avid fan of storm chasing videos and images.

Nature is fascinating, whether she's on a rampage or not. However, am I, and others, contributing to the problem by lapping up these storm videos? If so, how do we know if the storm chaser who took the video is ethical or not?

Even if we know whether the chaser was ethical, do we stop looking at their videos and images? How do you sift through all that?

The overall reaction to Holthaus' piece in Slate is that he makes some very good points, but he paints too broad a brush. And that maybe the situation with ethical chasers is more nuanced and complicated than Holthaus indicates.

I agree with that overall assessment. However, credit Holthaus for pushing a needed conversation. Lord knows more conversation is needed with this situation.

I don't have good solutions here, but maybe if we keep a critical eye on chasers, as Holthaus and others do, some solutions will emerge.