Trump administration layoffs hit NOAA, agency that forecasts weather, hurricanes

Guno צְבִי

Guno צְבִי

We fight, We win, Am Yisrael Chai
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration began firing staff on Thursday, continuing a wave of government-wide layoffs ordered by the Trump administration. The terminations, which include staff at the National Weather Service, could impact weather forecasting used by many people and industries across the U.S. economy.

It wasn't immediately clear how many people were fired from NOAA. Neither the agency nor the Department of Commerce, which oversees NOAA, responded to messages seeking comment. NPR has confirmed the firings at NOAA through multiple sources who asked for anonymity for fear of retribution.

Some fired employees were given less than two hours to leave the office, according to a source with direct knowledge who asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal. They said staff that manages NOAA's central weather forecasting models scrambled in that timeframe to transfer access to employees who remain at NOAA.

 
So long as they aren't laying off the hottie weather girl...

tracking_weather_girls_06.gif


:clap:
 
I was recently told by a expert that American weather forecasts are so bad, when much of the world is not, that relacing everyone with AI might be the way to go.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I was recently told by a expert that American weather forecasts are so bad, when much of the world is not, that relacing everyone with AI might be the way to go.
Click to expand...
They use AI, but that is not the same as being able to be replaced by AI. It is like trying to replace the car makers with cars.
 
Guno צְבִי said:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration began firing staff on Thursday, continuing a wave of government-wide layoffs ordered by the Trump administration. The terminations, which include staff at the National Weather Service, could impact weather forecasting used by many people and industries across the U.S. economy.

It wasn't immediately clear how many people were fired from NOAA. Neither the agency nor the Department of Commerce, which oversees NOAA, responded to messages seeking comment. NPR has confirmed the firings at NOAA through multiple sources who asked for anonymity for fear of retribution.

Some fired employees were given less than two hours to leave the office, according to a source with direct knowledge who asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal. They said staff that manages NOAA's central weather forecasting models scrambled in that timeframe to transfer access to employees who remain at NOAA.

Click to expand...


Jew, no. "According to a source with direct knowledge who asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal".



To analyze the article from NPR titled "Trump administration layoffs hit NOAA, the agency that forecasts weather and hurricanes" (published February 27, 2025) for accuracy and bias, I’ll evaluate its content based on the information presented, its sourcing, tone, and potential slant, while adhering to the principle of critically examining the establishment narrative. Since I cannot directly quote or reproduce the article verbatim, I’ll rely on the summary and context provided in the search results, my understanding of the topic, and general journalistic standards to assess it.


Accuracy Assessment
  1. Factual Claims and Sourcing:
    • The article reports that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began firing staff on Thursday (February 27, 2025), as part of a broader wave of government layoffs under the Trump administration. This is supported by NPR’s claim of having confirmed the firings through "multiple sources who asked for anonymity for fear of retribution." While anonymous sources can be credible in journalism, their anonymity limits the ability to independently verify the information. Without official statements from NOAA or the Department of Commerce (which oversees NOAA), the claim’s accuracy hinges on NPR’s reputation and the reliability of these unnamed sources.
    • The article mentions seeing "several copies of a termination letter" for NOAA employees in a "probationary" period, citing the reason as being "not fit for continued employment" due to mismatched skills or agency needs. This specificity lends some credibility, though the lack of direct access to these letters or an official count of affected employees leaves room for uncertainty.
    • The scope of the layoffs is unclear, as the article notes it "wasn’t immediately clear how many people were fired." This ambiguity is acknowledged, which is journalistically responsible, but it weakens the precision of the reporting. CNN’s related coverage (Web ID: 10) suggests around 800 employees were targeted, citing "two sources close to the agency," providing a potential ballpark figure NPR does not confirm.
  2. Contextual Evidence:
    • The article ties the layoffs to broader Trump administration efforts to reduce the federal workforce, aligning with prior reporting (e.g., Trump’s January executive orders targeting climate programs, as noted in NPR’s own prior coverage). This is consistent with policy proposals like Project 2025, a conservative playbook advocating for NOAA’s downsizing, which Scientific American (Web ID: 7) also references. The connection to a documented policy agenda supports the plausibility of the layoffs.
    • Claims about potential impacts—e.g., compromised weather forecasting—are supported by expert opinions and anonymous NOAA employees, who warn of "profound" consequences. Historical precedent (e.g., reduced weather model accuracy during the COVID-19 pandemic due to fewer aircraft observations) is cited, which is a verifiable phenomenon backed by scientific studies, enhancing the claim’s credibility.
  3. Gaps and Verification Challenges:
    • Neither NOAA nor the Department of Commerce responded to NPR’s requests for comment, leaving the story reliant on indirect evidence. This lack of official confirmation introduces a risk of inaccuracy if the sources misinterpreted or exaggerated the situation.
    • The article does not quantify the scale of the layoffs beyond affecting "probationary" staff (recent hires or promotees), nor does it specify which divisions (beyond the National Weather Service) were hit hardest. This vagueness limits a full accuracy assessment.
Bias Assessment
  1. Tone and Framing:
    • The article adopts a critical tone toward the Trump administration’s actions, emphasizing potential "drastic" and "profound" consequences for weather forecasting and public safety. Words like "firing," "wave of layoffs," and "ordered by the Trump administration" frame the policy as aggressive and top-down, potentially appealing to readers skeptical of government downsizing.
    • The inclusion of employee sentiments—e.g., "disheartening" and "reducing intellectual and regulatory capabilities"—amplifies a narrative of loss and concern, which may resonate with NPR’s generally progressive-leaning audience. These quotes, while anonymous, humanize the story but also selectively highlight negative perspectives without counterbalancing views (e.g., from administration officials or supporters of the cuts).
  2. Selection of Sources:
    • The reliance on anonymous NOAA employees and experts critical of the layoffs suggests a bias toward preserving the agency’s current structure. No perspectives from the Trump administration or proponents of reducing federal spending (e.g., DOGE advocates like Elon Musk, mentioned elsewhere) are included to justify the cuts. This omission tilts the narrative against the policy without presenting its rationale—e.g., fiscal efficiency or reducing perceived overreach.
    • The article’s focus on NOAA’s critical roles (weather forecasting, climate research) and its linkage to Trump’s prior climate program cuts subtly aligns with an environmentalist critique, a stance often associated with NPR’s editorial bent. This framing may downplay alternative priorities, like reallocating resources elsewhere.
  3. Implied Assumptions:
    • There’s an implicit assumption that NOAA’s current staffing and scope are optimal, with cuts inherently detrimental. While experts warn of risks (e.g., to forecast accuracy), the article doesn’t explore whether redundancies or inefficiencies exist—possibilities a more neutral piece might raise.
    • The mention of Project 2025 and Trump’s past actions (e.g., the 2019 "Sharpiegate" incident, alluded to in Scientific American) ties the layoffs to a broader narrative of climate denialism or incompetence, potentially exaggerating intent without direct evidence of motive.
Critical Examination of the Narrative
  • Establishment Lens: NPR, as a publicly funded outlet, often aligns with scientific and governmental institutions like NOAA, which could predispose it to view staff cuts skeptically. The article fits a pattern of establishment media framing Trump-era policies as disruptive, especially on climate and science issues. However, without hard data on the layoffs’ scope or impact, this framing risks being speculative.
  • Counterpoints: The Trump administration might argue these cuts align with a mandate to streamline government, a perspective absent here. NOAA’s 12,000-strong workforce (per Scientific American) and broad mission creep (weather, fisheries, climate) could justify scrutiny, yet the article doesn’t entertain this angle. Conversely, the risk to public safety from reduced forecasting capacity is a legitimate concern, especially given NOAA’s role in hurricane-prone regions—CNN’s mention of terminated hurricane researchers like Andrew Hazelton underscores this.
  • Speculative Risks: Predictions of "profound" impacts rely on hypotheticals (e.g., degraded models). While plausible, they’re not yet observable, and past resilience in weather systems (e.g., during partial data loss) suggests some adaptability NPR doesn’t acknowledge.
Conclusion
  • Accuracy: The article appears largely accurate based on available evidence, with credible ties to policy trends and expert input. However, its dependence on anonymous sources, lack of official confirmation, and vague scope introduce uncertainty. It’s plausible but not fully substantiated as of February 28, 2025.
  • Bias: The piece exhibits a moderate bias against the Trump administration’s actions, favoring NOAA’s preservation through selective framing, critical tone, and omission of opposing views. It leans toward an environmentally conscious, anti-austerity narrative, consistent with NPR’s editorial tendencies, but doesn’t egregiously distort facts.
For a more balanced take, cross-referencing with primary sources (e.g., NOAA statements, if released) or outlets with differing perspectives (e.g., conservative-leaning ones) would be prudent. As it stands, the article is a credible starting point but reflects a particular lens that readers should weigh critically.



@Grok
 
Don't worry the people on the Gulf coast / south eastern states don't need to know when , where , a hurricane is going to hit.
President Musk and Trump don't care if a couple of million Americans die or not.
 
And let's not forget the cuts to forest service, which will likely increase the risk of wildfires.

I swear - if I didn't know any better, I'd think that the President's job was to make us less safe, and less prosperous.
 
Walt said:
That is a Romanian weather announcer... So would not be covered by American weather forecasters. Besides. weather announcers just announce the weather that is forecast by the forecasters.
Click to expand...
It was meant to be illustrative for the joke and intended humor, you regressive, Leftist, clod.
 
Walt said:
We are losing our edge in predicting the weather; it is part of the slow destruction of America... But you find it funny, so that is something.
Click to expand...
Like we do such a good job of that now. The NOAA has no idea what the weather will be like on some given day 3 months from now with any precision.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Like we do such a good job of that now.
Click to expand...
Where we used to have 3 day predictions, we now have 10 day predictions. To get more days is an exponential problem, so it is not 3 times harder to get 10 days, it is 1000 times harder. The seasonal forecasts are getting amazing. Tracking hurricanes and tornadoes is much better.

And we could do better yet.

T. A. Gardner said:
The NOAA has no idea what the weather will be like on some given day 3 months from now with any precision.
Click to expand...
There comes a point where you get the butterfly effect. A butterfly flapping his wings can be the deciding factor.
 
Guno צְבִי said:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration began firing staff on Thursday, continuing a wave of government-wide layoffs ordered by the Trump administration. The terminations, which include staff at the National Weather Service, could impact weather forecasting used by many people and industries across the U.S. economy.

It wasn't immediately clear how many people were fired from NOAA. Neither the agency nor the Department of Commerce, which oversees NOAA, responded to messages seeking comment. NPR has confirmed the firings at NOAA through multiple sources who asked for anonymity for fear of retribution.

Some fired employees were given less than two hours to leave the office, according to a source with direct knowledge who asked to remain anonymous for fear of reprisal. They said staff that manages NOAA's central weather forecasting models scrambled in that timeframe to transfer access to employees who remain at NOAA.

Click to expand...
Trump is shortsighted and thrives on chaos and disorganization.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top