Wash Post's Jason Samenow: "The Weather Service, which has a mission to protect life and property, may have felt it was best serving the public by stressing the worst-case scenario for the big cities. But it’s a risky strategy that can cost credibility. Trust is so important in weather prediction because, when it is eroded, the public may take forecasts less seriously in life-or-death situations."
Climate Depots' Marc Morano reacts: "We have now officially expanded the era of 'fake news' to include 'fake weather.' The public expects scientifically accurate and up to the minute forecasts, not calculated politically dubious forecasts that hide the truth."
"The NWS's primary function is to inform the public in situations like this, not make forecasts based on how to best influence public behavior. It is not the "National Psychiatric Service", but the National WEATHER Service. The NWS has taken it upon themselves to decide that the public was unable to hand the truth about the 2017 Blizzard Bust."
"Out of extreme caution we decided to stick with higher amounts," Greg Carbin, chief of forecast operations at the Weather Prediction Center in suburban Maryland, told The Associated Press.
Carbin said a last-minute change downgrading snowfall totals might have given people the wrong message that the storm was no longer a threat....Dramatically changing forecasts in what meteorologists call "the windshield wiper effect" only hurts the public, said Bob Henson, a meteorologist for the private Weather Underground.
Lindzen: Since MIT’s administration has made the climate issue a major focus for the Institute, with (MIT's) PAOC playing a central role, it is not surprising that the department would object to any de-emphasis. But the PAOC letter shows very clearly the wisdom of James Madison’s admonition, in the Federalist, 10:
“No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time.”
For far too long, one body of men, establishment climate scientists, has been permitted to be judges and parties on what the “risks to the Earth system associated with increasing levels of carbon dioxide” really are.