Keith Dancey wrote:
In article , Graham P Davis
writes:
Keith Dancey wrote:
I don't mind if the Met Office is wrong in the prediction because
everything I have purchased will either get used, or is useful to have
around anyway. But I think they could and should have simply been a
little bit clearer in wording how bad they expected conditions might
get.
I fail to see what more they could have done to make it clearer.
Then you *haven't* read the postings...
I have, but perhaps I should have used "should" instead of "could" as I
didn't believe that any so-called improvement was necessary. When the media
want to make up a story it doesn't matter how careful you are about what
you say they'll still turn it on its head.
The Met Office did give an indication as to how bad conditions might get by
simply saying they expected the winter to be colder than average and the
coldest since 1995/6. If the media decide to interpret this as meaning the
coldest for 40 years - not 10 - and change "colder than average" to
"severe" or "harsh" then I still don't see how the Met Office can be
blamed.
I've understood what terms such as "colder than average" and "normal" meant
in terms of how the temperature felt since I was a child so I don't see why
the press - or the man on the Clapham Omnibus - shouldn't be expected to
have at least the same level of comprehension as a child.
The idea that there should have been a firmer definition of the depth of
cold expected is OK if that was known. Did the forecast produce temperature
expectations in quintiles or terciles?
Graham Davis
Bracknell