Even if the 1 in 1000 were accurate, that would still mean a lot of occurrences over the last 100 million years. Negating the use of the adjective "unprecedented ".
I don’t think these statistical models are inherently bad science, but they can be misleading if the important caveats aren’t stressed. Unfortunately, they are left out in most cases.
Interesting records are historical water marks near large rivers, e.g. the Rhine where you can find extreme levels (high or low) in historic times. These are routinely ignored when extreme events are announced.
"So why does this happen? Why does the media latch onto these dramatic, but statistically unsound, claims?" Because journalists don't have to take/don't take math, or they failed it. So instead, they find the climate scientist who peddles extreme notions to get his 15 minutes of fame.
When will the general public catch on to the "boy who cried wolf"? Is it possible for the MSM to continue to spew these sensationalized headlines and common sense kicks in for the majority of us and we start ignoring what they are trying to sell. After all, just as you've pointed out, they are selling this narrative. I am all for freedom of speech and would not want to limit what people can say, however, when it comes to journalistic integrity, it is a rare commodity today and maybe if a few were held accountable it would stop. Oh wait, that's right, we as the plaintiff could no more prove they are wrong or prove we are correct because there isn't enough data to support either claim. Herein lies the rub.
Weather panic porn sells advertising minutes. The daily forecast on local broadcasts routinely exaggerate risk to the point I don't listen.
"If it bleeds, it leeds."
Even if the 1 in 1000 were accurate, that would still mean a lot of occurrences over the last 100 million years. Negating the use of the adjective "unprecedented ".
Matt, nice article as usual!
I don’t think these statistical models are inherently bad science, but they can be misleading if the important caveats aren’t stressed. Unfortunately, they are left out in most cases.
I agree. I like the saying "All models are wrong, but some are useful" that my advisor used to say.
That is a very great way of putting it! Well said.
Interesting records are historical water marks near large rivers, e.g. the Rhine where you can find extreme levels (high or low) in historic times. These are routinely ignored when extreme events are announced.
You have it in a nutshell. But many don’t believe me whenever I make the same point.
"So why does this happen? Why does the media latch onto these dramatic, but statistically unsound, claims?" Because journalists don't have to take/don't take math, or they failed it. So instead, they find the climate scientist who peddles extreme notions to get his 15 minutes of fame.
When will the general public catch on to the "boy who cried wolf"? Is it possible for the MSM to continue to spew these sensationalized headlines and common sense kicks in for the majority of us and we start ignoring what they are trying to sell. After all, just as you've pointed out, they are selling this narrative. I am all for freedom of speech and would not want to limit what people can say, however, when it comes to journalistic integrity, it is a rare commodity today and maybe if a few were held accountable it would stop. Oh wait, that's right, we as the plaintiff could no more prove they are wrong or prove we are correct because there isn't enough data to support either claim. Herein lies the rub.
The weather is after all, unpredictable.