Weather agency faces storm

forecaster was not based on science but on external factors including reputation and appearance, or simply put, political,’’ acting chief scientist and assistant administrator for ocean and atmospheric research Craig Mclean wrote to staffers.

In the email, first reported by The Washington Post, Mclean said he is ‘‘pursuing the potential violations’’ of the agency’s science integrity policy.

NOAA spokesman Scott Smullen said yesterday, ‘‘NOAA’S policies on scientific integrity and communications are among the strongest in the federal government, and get high marks from third party observers. The agency’s senior career leaders are free to express their opinions about matters of agency operations and science. The agency will not be providing further official comment, and will not speculate on internal reviews.’’

Meanwhile, another career civil servant, National Weather Service Director Louis Uccellini said forecasters in Birmingham did the right thing on September 1 when they tried to combat public panic and rumours that Dorian posed a threat to Alabama.

‘‘They did that with one thing in mind: public safety,’’ said Uccellini, who prompted a standing ovation at a meeting of the National Weather Association by asking members of the Birmingham weather staff to stand.

‘‘Only later, when the retweets and politically based comments started coming to their office, did they learn the sources of this information,’’ he said.

Kevin Laws, science and operations officer for the weather service in Birmingham, declined comment on Uccellini’s remarks.

‘‘I think the speech speaks for itself,’’ Laws said.

Mclean in his letter said the Birmingham staff ‘‘corrected any public misunderstanding in an expert and timely way as they should. There followed, last Saturday, an unsigned press release from NOAA that inappropriately and incorrectly contradicted the NWS forecaster.’’ –AP