Weather Nonsense

By -
Weather.com ends an article sensibly debunking the idea that forecasters can predict what area of the country will be hit by a hurricane with the following dictum:

"BE EQUALLY PREPARED EVERYWHERE EVERY YEAR. Period. "

This principle is absurd. Resources are scarse, and it is ludicrous for everyone everywhere to prepare equally for all risks. Should the residents of Labrador prepare for a hurricane "equally" to those of the Bahamas? After all, there's some chance, however small, that a hurricane will hit Labrador. And ilkewise, per this principle, the residents of the Bahamas should prepare for blizzards just as well as those of Fargo, ND.

What utter rubbish.

Comments

  1. Aristos11:09 PM

    Right on, Mr. Callahan! It's like the police department of some small town in northwestern Montana organizing a gang task force. Because there are gangs in Los Angeles, the folks in Great Falls ought to worry as well.

    Simply exposed, it benefits weather.com for everyone to fear the weather.

    ReplyDelete
  2. gcallah11:22 PM

    Exactly. It would be lovely if we had infinite resources available to prepare for any possible disaster -- but if we had infinite resources, would we even need to prepare? -- but we don't, so we have to pick and choose.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jeff, aka Peconic Jeff12:43 PM

    Wow, it makes me wonder if you guys even read the article? The weather.com author was actually criticizing the media for over-hyping seasonal predictions, as if individuals and municipalities in that year's "Danger Zone" were the only ones in harm's way.

    But what "scarse [sic]" resources are you talking about? Preparing oneself means making a plan and supply kit (ie, don't rely on cell phones and other modern conveniences). Most of the items in the suggested supply kit can be used in any disaster: flashlights and radios are helpful whether the power goes out from a hurricane, blizzard, tornado, earthquake, etc. If you live a colder clime, pack more blankets. You don't need infinite resources, just the appropriate ones. It's not too hard to understand, and it's certainly not "utter rubbish".

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more