We begin today’s roundup with reactions to the report that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross threatened to fire NOAA staff who refused to manipulate weather data to cover for the president’s mistakes. First up, Paul Krugman:
Why [were NOAA’s actions] frightening? Because it shows that even the leadership of NOAA, which should be the most technical and apolitical of agencies, is now so subservient to Trump that it’s willing not just to overrule its own experts but to lie, simply to avoid a bit of presidential embarrassment.
Three former NOAA administrators, Jane Lubchenco, D. James Baker and Kathryn D. Sullivan, write at The Washington Post about the dangers of politicizing the weather:
Even a hint that a forecast or warning was influenced by politics would undermine the public’s trust and the ability to respond quickly and effectively under potentially life-threatening conditions.
If political appointees overrule trained scientists, imposing political concerns on scientific matters, they endanger public safety as well as the credibility and morale of the agency charged with protecting that safety.
Catherine Rampell adds her take:
Trump’s attempted manipulations of official metrics — and the aspersions he casts upon metrics he cannot manipulate — degrade our democracy, economy and public safety.
Distrust in official data is deadly to voters’ ability to evaluate public policies, as well as the records of the officials crafting or overseeing those policies.
This numerical nihilism likewise wears on companies’ and households’ abilities to make informed and economically efficient decisions, something Trump’s billionaire Cabinet should appreciate.
By their actions this past week, Ross and Jacobs have clearly crossed a line. The public trust in the forecast is paramount, and with NOAA under their oversight, it’s now impossible to know, without hesitation, that the agency’s reports represent the best work of its scientists.
Not every leader has acted as recklessly. Today, Uccellini, the NWS director, spoke with a large conference of meteorologists in Alabama, of all places. He asked the members of the Birmingham office to stand. They got a standing ovation. We owe them, and all public employees now striving to uphold the integrity of the weather forecast, the same.
David Graham:
“If the public cannot trust our information, or we debase our forecasters’ warnings and products, that specific danger arises,” NOAA’s McLean wrote in his email to staff. Next time a storm approaches, where can Americans go for reliable information? Not to Trump, of course. But can they trust official forecasts from government agencies? On August 31, that question was easy to answer. Now it is much cloudier.
Switching topics, Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow for American Diplomacy and U.S. Foreign Policy at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes about Trump’s proposed meeting with the Taliban at Camp David:
Symbolism. It’s awful. Sure you negotiate with your enemies. But you don't host Taliban leaders at your historic presidential retreat days after they claimed responsibility for yet another deadly attack in Kabul that killed a U.S. serviceman and 11 others, not to mention the deaths of thousands of their fellow Afghans and U.S. forces over the years.
It’s also very bad negotiating. At least in Arafat’s case, he had recognized Israel, had been negotiating with the Israelis for years before, and while his commitment to forswear violence was pretty empty, Palestinian and Israeli security cooperation was robust and often effective.
On a final note, here’s Dana Milbank’s take on the proposed Camp David meeting:
Trump seems to enjoy the theatrics of canceling things he had (supposedly) planned to do. He canceled a retaliatory attack on Iran after ordering one up. He canceled, then reinstated, a meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. He stormedinto a meeting with Democrats for the sole purpose of canceling it. He canceled his Denmark trip after the prime minister panned his Greenland scheme. He said he canceled the Air Force One contract with Boeing because of high costs (then wound up paying even more). He cancels meetings with reporters as punishment. He’s constantly scheduling and canceling his talks with China. He has canceled dozens of proposed nominations.
But why did he cancel the Taliban sleepover party at Camp David? The stated reason — another Taliban attack in Afghanistan — doesn’t make much sense, because Taliban violence in Afghanistan happens all the time. I suspect it’s because he read a draft of the proposed peace agreement, and it went something like this:
CAMP DAVID, Sept. 11, 2019: Taliban Peace Treaty (Great Deal!) …