I've got it!

The MO was going for the 'Reverse Michael Fish Effect'. See, by telling
us all there would be high winds and extensive damage they knew there
would be absolutely no chance of it happening.

Simon

Hi all,

Simon Wyndham wrote in message ...
I've got it!

The MO was going for the 'Reverse Michael Fish Effect'. See, by telling
us all there would be high winds and extensive damage they knew there
would be absolutely no chance of it happening.

Simon

I understand the position forecasters are in when predicting
potentially severe weather. A potentially no-win situation. The last
thing they want is a repeat of what came across as blunder in 1987
(but it seemed the media didn't understand all the technical
difficulties in weather forecasting). However, I'm concerned that, one
day, the "Reverse Michael Fish Effect" could cause just as many
problems. There could come a point when people might stop taking
notice of storm warnings; after so many no-shows and crying wolf. I
have stopped watching TV forcasts / news. If I believed everything I
heard there, I wouldn't go out. I prefer to get news and weather
information from the web where it is more factual and in depth.

Now it seems as we have dire warnings almost everytime a low comes in;
even when we could use the rain after one of the driest years on
record. As to whether the rain has caused any flood problems; I don't
know: the Environment Agency's website is experiencing "technical
problems" yet again; funny this always happens when the information is
likely to be most needed.

Joan.

Could have written that myself. I am also now a "warning-sceptic" -
partly as a reaction to all the hype and partly because the Met Office seems to
be going through a rather prolonged bad patch. Maybe we expect too much from
them.
But the hysteria is all part of the zeitgeist, which is "Be scared!".

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Yes but Tudor,is it not better too play it safe than wait untill ground zero
and say "Oh that Storm".Remember 87?