That's doubleplusungood!

Um, it's the left that has been trying to erase history; defacing monuments and tearing down statues.

I assume that you are referring to statues of Civil War figures of the Confederacy. The left is not trying to claim that this history never happened, they are saying that there shouldn't be monuments to the side that wanted to secede from the United States and to maintain slavery as an institution.

In any case, that's not a rabbit hole I want to go down. This doesn't have to be what-about-ism. The truth, especially scientific truth is not political. Republicans and Democrats should be able to equally agree that weather predictions made by qualified scientists are not something to be politically manipulated.

If we look a bit further at things like pollution and climate change, the Republicans have many things to be proud of. The EPA was founded by Nixon, and the Montreal Protocol to reduce CFCs that were affecting the ozone was signed during the Regean administration.

My hope is that Republicans as well as Democrats should be able to speak out against the government manipulating the truth. I know that this is a lot harder to do when the president is on your side of the political divide.

Now you're the arbiter of truth....god help us all

of course not, I'm just a guy who made a silly meme. But the point is, there are truths we should all agree on, that are apolitical. It's absurd that a weather prediction would be altered under political pressure.

Weather predictions are altered every single day because the input data changes every single day. There is a historical record of them on the NOAA website. The hurricane Dorian historical maps changed every-single-day. The day-to-day prediction isn't the same for any hurricane....ever.

https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2019/DORIAN_graphics.php?product=5day_cone_with_line

Maybe, just maybe, the weather service continued to operate as they always have instead of conspiring to put your panties into a bunch.

Weather predictions change is not a defence for NOAA tweeting something thing that was false, and having to correct themselves, nor does it explain a directive they issued not to contradict Trump, when the only thing they should be concerned with is their forecasts.

Maybe, just maybe, some people will defend Trump no matter how wrong he is.

Where can this "directive...not to contradict Trump" be found?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/noaa-staff-warned-in-sept-1-directive-against-contradicting-trump/2019/09/07/12a52d1a-d18f-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html

So, WaPo took a directive that said:

"only stick with the official National Hurricane Center forecasts if questions arise from some national level social media posts which hit the news this afternoon" and 'not to "provide any opinion"'

and turned it into:

"directive...not to contradict Trump"

The article further contradicts itself by reporting these few lines of the memo, and then quotes someone saying the opposite:

"This is the first time I've felt pressure from above to not say what truly is the forecast." - The directive (as reported) says no such thing!

Yet further down the article, it admits there was a "5 to 20 percent chance of tropical-storm-force winds in a small part of Alabama." - the very sharpie marks people are freaking out over!

This is what I get for being a detail oriented critical thinker.... I've got to explain things to people like they're children. I should just stick to writing software and let fools be fools.

that's not how I read it, but I would like to see the actual e-mail. Also a software developer for what that's worth. (c, assembly, kernel etc)

It's the 2nd and 3rd sentence...you missed the 2nd and 3rd sentences? The first contradiction happens in the 7th sentence.

Did you not read it at all?

'They were also told not to “provide any opinion,” according to a copy of the email',
is the part that I take as the directive not to say anything contradicting Trump.

it further reads "One of the things we train on is to dispel inaccurate rumors", this is where he feels hampered to dispel the rumor caused by Trump.

The part with the 5-20 percent in full is

"The official said the statement called out Birmingham’s tweet because one NOAA hurricane forecast product showed a 5 to 20 percent chance of tropical-storm-force winds in a small part of Alabama.

“It was nothing against Birmingham, we needed to make sure forecast products reflect probabilistic guidance,” the official said, referencing the extremely low odds for tropical storm-force winds.

Such wind speeds, between 39 and 74 mph, rarely cause much damage or require the advance preparation.

The NOAA statement made no reference of the fact that when Trump tweeted that Alabama was at risk, the state was not in the National Hurricane Center’s “cone of uncertainty,” which forecasters use to determine where the storm is most likely to hit. Alabama also had not appeared in the cone in the days before that."

So to me, that says the small percent that is being used to verify the president's claim is insignificant.

This doesn't mean that I don't get your point. You're saying that the article is exaggerating the pressure on the NOAA.

That is also why it would be nice to see the whole emails first hand and not rely on the article.

That's a heck of a leap - stick to the official forecast and don't provide opinion = don't contradict Trump.

Nobody is going to publish the directive because it doesn't say what they say it says.