“Yes, that was doctored.” - NOAA comms office, Sept. 4, 2019, 2:32p 
“Here they come ...” - NOAA, Sept. 4, 2019, 4:09p, after the AP fact-checking team reached out
NOAA’s initial response decision, per emails that evening, was not to respond: “... pivot away from this topic ... we will not comment on past forecasts and products.”
NOAA, the next day, Sept. 5, 2019: “... there have been subsequent tweets since this original message.”
For those who, blessedly, forgot about the ins and outs of #SharpieGate, here was a (partial) timeline: vox.com/policy-and-pol…
Of course, shortly after that Vox piece was published was when the unsigned NOAA press statement, criticizing an NWS tweet from the prior weekend, was sent out.
Wow, back after Trump’s initial tweet, the weekend prior, NOAA uses a euphemism to describe Trump’s tweet: “national level social media posts.”
When the Washington Post got ahold of those messages and followed up, there was a ~flurry~ of activity trying to explain how the directives about not commenting on “national level social media posts” weren’t about stopping scientists from contradicting Trump. 😶
Wow, NOAA comms and political leadership actually claimed that their warning against commenting on “national level social media posts” was NOT a warning against contradicting Trump because “[t]he guidance made no reference to the president.”
“Yep, crazy.” - NOAA’s COO, the morning after #SharpieGate
Regarding the unsigned Friday, Sept. 6 NOAA statement, NOAA’s deputy administrator told a longtime NOAA scientist on Sunday that it was a “press release we did not approve or support.”
