<img class="styles__noscript__2rw2y" src="https://s.w-x.co/util/image/w/AP19247710623631.jpg?v=at&w=485&h=273" srcset="https://s.w-x.co/util/image/w/AP19247710623631.jpg?v=at&w=485&h=273 400w, https://s.w-x.co/util/image/w/AP19247710623631.jpg?v=ap&w=980&h=551 800w" > President Donald Trump holds a chart as he talks with reporters after receiving a briefing on Hurricane Dorian in the Oval Office of the White House, Wednesday, Sept. 4, 2019, in Washington D.C. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)

At a Glance Meteorologists and weather service employees were outraged by the NOAA statement.

In the statement, NOAA contradicted its own meteorologists.

There was a small chance at some points in the forecast that tropical storm force winds could reach Alabama. The federal agency that oversees the National Weather Service and the National Hurricane Center issued a statement Friday evening that amounts to an about-face on its views on President Trump's claims that Alabama was likely to be hit hard by Hurricane Dorian, despite what the agency's own meteorologists had forecast.

The NOAA statement also rebuked the NWS office in Birmingham, Alabama, for tweeting – 20 minutes after Trump – that the state would see no impacts from the storm.

The statement by NOAA, and the public scolding of the Birmingham office, drew outrage from top meteorologists, NWS employees and others who saw it as a slap in the face to scientists working for the agency.

(MORE: Hurricane Dorian Triggers Severe Flooding in Outer Banks; Supplies Airlifted to Ocracoke Island)

Richard Hirn, an attorney for the National Weather Service Employees Organization, told weather.com the statement was "a very dangerous precedent" that could undermine public confidence in the weather service.

"Certainly in the nearly 40 years I’ve represented the weather service employees, I have never seen the parent agency, NOAA, in any instance fail to publicly back forecast products of the rank and file forecasters of the National Weather Bureau,” Hirn said.

He accused NOAA of trying to "politicize weather forecasting." The head of NOAA is a presidential appointee.

Others were even more blunt in their criticism of, and disappointment in, the agency. David Titley, a meteorologist and former chief operating officer of NOAA, said on Twitter that the statement represented "perhaps the darkest day ever for NOAA leadership" and it showed "moral cowardice."

Bill Read, a former director of the National Hurricane Center, said he disgreed with the statement and cited two possible explanations, which he called "embarrassing" and "heartbreaking."

NOAA's statement, which did not include any names or attribution, also contradicted what the agency's spokesman, Chris Vaccaro, said after Trump's tweet on Sunday.

"The current forecast path of Dorian does not include Alabama," Vaccaro said at the time, according to the Associated Press.

The issue has made headlines for a nearly a week, since Trump first tweeted at 10:51 a.m. on Sunday, Sept. 1, that several states, including Alabama, "will most likely be hit (much) harder than anticipated."

The NWS in Birmingham tweeted at 11:11 a.m. that same day that Alabama would not be affected by Dorian.

Trump compounded the issue by presenting a doctored map at a press conference on Wednesday that showed an extended NHC forecast cone for Dorian, which appeared to have been drawn on the map with a Sharpie marker.

Alabama was never in the five-day cone of uncertainty for Hurricane Dorian, according to Linda Lam, a weather.com meteorologist. In its Sunday statement, NOAA cited NHC forecasts that showed there was a small chance that tropical storm force winds could reach into Alabama, but the forecast never indicated Alabama would be "hit hard," as President Trump asserted.

The NOAA statement also said: "The Birmingham National Weather Service’s Sunday morning tweet spoke in absolute terms that were inconsistent with probabilities from the best forecast products available at the time."

Lam said forecasters were just trying to provide people with the most accurate information.

"It can be tricky using absolutes with weather forecasting," Lam said. "But it is also important to be clear about what people need to be prepared for or worried about versus not needing to worry about it. In this case, it seems NWS was trying to be clear that it was not a concern for people (in Alabama) to stress about."

And the real clincher? One forecaster in the Birmingham office says that the staff wasn't even aware of Trump's tweet. They were simply responding to concerns from people in their coverage area.