Weather Banter - View Single Post - The pitfalls and nuances of probability forecasts.

Tudor Hughes · January 30th 06, 01:29 PM posted to uk.sci.weather

wrote:
Frankly, I didn't have a clue what the Met Office winter forecast
really meant. They were trying to baffle the public with
pseudo-science, made money out (that day's presentation to industry at
several hundred £££), meanwhile leaving the tabloid press with the
impression that it was going be a really bitter season.

You might just as well issue a forecast that says:
There is a 3 in 10 chance that March 2006 will be warmer than March
2005, a 3 in 10 chance that it will be colder, and a 4 in 10 chance
that it will be about the same.

Jack

The forecast was perfectly clear to me. In effect it said "We
think it's going to be colder than recent winters but we're not too
sure". It was an honest statement and if that's "pseudoscience" give
me more of it.
The tabloid press did not get the impression that it was going
to be a "really bitter season" unless they can't read. What they did
was to say to themselves "How can we sensationalise this?" Thus the
*public* were given the impression of a severe winter. It wasn't just
the tabloids either; the Independent was as guilty as any. Whatever
the Met Office had said would have been either misunderstood or
distorted. That's the press for you. I don't know what the answer is.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.