Oh, and here's something I didn't expect to see -- Sharpiegate.
No, really.
Both Jacobs and Roberts refute the findings, but interestingly enough, Roberts says she took issue with the wording
herself, but that it went over her head. Which means she isn't so much saying she was ethical, but that she was told to be unethical and went along with it because she thought she'd be fired. And, Roberts was on Trump's inaugural board, so her loyalties at the time were questionable...and were, in fact, questioned. You're reading the answers.
Remember, not only was the letter saying "Oh, but it could have hit Alabama, all the scientists were wrong!" was
unsigned. And Trump believes global warming is a Chinese hoax, and told people at his inauguration it wasn't raining on them
while it was raining on them. He has no credibility and no respect for weather (or science in general) and it's safe to assume he'd attract like-minded individuals.
Also, while researching this post,
I found this, which appears to be Roberts' response as written May 15, and if so shows her side of the story. Here's the relevant bit:
I find this form of denial pretty damning. "No, that's not what happened" is one thing, "I was being ethical but my ethics were overridden" is another. In fact, it seems like she's agreeing that changing the phrasing to placate Trump's whims was, in fact, unethical -- she just doesn't want to be blamed for it. She's either telling the truth, and that means this got worse, or she's lying, and therefore, did unethically overrule her own scientists. There is no third option I can think of.
I also found this for some reason.
I have no idea why either of these documents were so easy to find. I wasn't even looking for them.