Market Data
The Politicization of Science: A Cautionary Tale from the Trump Era
Craig McLean, the former acting chief scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) during President Donald Trump’s first term, has shared a deeply concerning account of the politicization of science during that era. McLean’s story centers around Neil Jacobs, Trump’s nominee to lead NOAA, and the infamous "Sharpie-gate" incident, which highlighted the dangerous intersection of politics and science. McLean’s warnings about the consequences of undermining scientific integrity come as Trump is once again seeking the presidency, raising fears among the scientific community about the potential for further erosion of trust in critical institutions like NOAA.
The "Sharpie-Gate" Controversy and Its Fallout
The controversy began in early September 2019 during Hurricane Dorian, a powerful storm that threatened the southeastern United States. On September 1, 2019, the National Weather Service (NWS) accurately predicted the storm’s path up the Atlantic coast, noting that Alabama was not in the storm’s projected path. However, President Trump tweeted that Alabama was at risk, sparking confusion. The NWS office in Alabama quickly corrected the president, stating, "Alabama will NOT see any impacts from #Dorian." Three days later, in a televised briefing, Trump held up an altered NOAA map, apparently doctored with a black marker to extend the storm’s potential path into Alabama. This moment became known as "Sharpie-gate."
What followed was even more troubling. Without McLean’s knowledge, NOAA leadership released a statement backing Trump’s claim and rebuking the weather forecasters in Alabama. This move was widely seen as a politically motivated attempt to protect the president’s credibility, even at the expense of scientific truth. McLean described the incident as a moment of profound betrayal, saying it filled him with "rage" and a sense of helplessness. He demanded investigations into the matter, and subsequent reports from the National Academy of Public Administration and the U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General confirmed his worst fears: the statement backing Trump was issued under "external political pressure" from the White House.
Ethical Violations and the Erosion of Trust
The investigations concluded that Neil Jacobs, then the acting head of NOAA, had violated NOAA’s Scientific Integrity Policy by failing to consult with the National Weather Service office in Alabama before issuing the statement. Jacobs later claimed he felt pressured by the White House, fearing that if he resisted, the final statement would have been even more inflammatory. McLean, who had served NOAA with integrity for decades, saw this as a clear breach of ethical standards. "To have a political process unplug the public’s trust—that got me stirred," he said. The incident not only damaged the reputation of NOAA but also eroded public trust in the agency’s ability to provide accurate and impartial information about weather events and climate change.
The Broader Implications for Climate Science
McLean’s story is not just about one incident; it is part of a larger narrative about the politicization of science under the Trump administration. NOAA plays a critical role in monitoring the health of the oceans, tracking climate change, and providing essential data to farmers, corporations, and insurance companies. The agency’s work is not just about predicting the weather; it underpins the nation’s ability to prepare for climate-related disasters and adapt to shifting weather patterns. Yet, McLean warns that the Trump administration’s disregard for scientific integrity hasすぎ.multipart Governments DockgetManager() and threatens to undermine NOAA’s ability to fulfill its mission.
A Stark Warning About the Future
McLean’s concerns extend beyond the Trump era. He fears that if Trump returns to office, the damage to NOAA and other scientific institutions could be even more severe. Project 2025, a roadmap for the next Republican administration, has called for breaking up NOAA, labeling it one of the "main drivers of the climate change alarm industry." McLean strongly disagrees, arguing that NOAA’s work is vital to understanding and addressing the alarming impacts of climate change. "We’re required by law to give the full picture," he said. "What we’re seeing is alarming, is very alarming."
Looking Ahead: The Fight for Scientific Integrity
Despite the challenges, McLean remains hopeful. He believes that the scientific community must continue to advocate for the integrity of their work and resist political pressures that threaten the public’s trust. McLean’s story serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of politicizing science and the importance of protecting institutions like NOAA. As the nation braces for the growing risks of climate change, the need for accurate, science-based information has never been greater. McLean’s message is clear: "People’s lives are on the line."
