Journal-hysteria

 

Old timers in SoCal remember infrequent, irregular, but periodic tropical storms reaching our area. Today, an online database of rainfall records shows rainfall in mid-late summer through September once in a while. It is not unique, not rare, and has happened for 100-plus years.

What’s different? Too lazy to do research? Climate hysteria?  Enjoy sounding alarming?  Need to feed the threat/danger scenario?

The WSJ pointed out multiple specific tropical storm events since 1960.  Again, why the false reporting? Tropical Storm Hillary garnered attention. Is it because we have better technology than we did 50 years ago? We couldn’t forecast this well in the past? We’ve made progress then, technologically — a good thing.

But we need perspective to put the storm in context, not to frighten. A late summer storm dumping two to three inches over most of the populated southland may be a good thing. Help to top off reservoirs; dampen dry grasses and brush to reduce to some extent brush fire hazard this fall.

BTW, a 5.1 quake in Ojai is not a disaster, as numerously reported by many. It is at the low end of the moderate band on the Richter scale.  Only poorly constructed buildings have any damage. It’s shameful journalists don’t know what anyone can verify in one minute online. Do they or their producers wish to unnecessarily alarm listeners/viewers?

Published in Science & Technology
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 11 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. OkieSailor Member
    OkieSailor
    @OkieSailor

    Yes they wish to alarm as that is how they get viewers and clicks.  They never read the story of the boy who cried wolf or, more likely, don’t care.   At any rate,  alarm and outrage are thier only coin.  They should be ignored or laughed at but not taken seriously.  They are entertainers not reporters. 

    • #1
  2. Chuck Thatcher
    Chuck
    @Chuckles

    I grew up in Southern California, from 1st grade (Santa Ana) through 6th grade (Coronado – 1958?).  Only thing I can recall knowing about was in Baja California: Well, that and a couple of truly, truly minor earthquakes.

    Nothing to see, folks.  Move right along.

    • #2
  3. Franco Inactive
    Franco
    @Franco

    This has been something that has been bothering me for decades with increasing contempt and laughter.

    My ex mother-in-law, a lovely lady wood watch the weather channel on background regardless of the local weather. It was eye-opening for me, because everywhere in the world, there’s bad weather pretty much, it’s only one it’s coming towards us that we really care. I went through where they were educating us all on meteorology. I remember when ‘wind chill’ was invented. I tuned in  in the TV to see what the weather was going to be tomorrow. David Letterman mined comedy gold portraying the Weatherman type. Remember the heat wave in Paris? Elderly people living in lifts LaBoheme style were dying! Eighty year-olds who don’t believe in air conditioning die of old age, but the weather channel has determined that heat was the sole cause of death. 

    At some point I realized that it’s more than just alarmism, they are also selling themselves as soothing advisors and concerned personalities.

    Working at outdoor events as a performer I witnessed the nanny bias the weather drones were endlessly prattling. Ultimately, they wanted their audience to stay home and watch them and their commercials! That’s what is actually happening.

    Performers compete for audiences. These meteorological performers were telling their audience. Stay here, don’t go out. “Be safe”Watch me!

    It is always in their interest when you are paying attention to them. Beyond all the ego, which is incentive enough for most of these people, they are selling their time to advertisers. So it’s important for their paycheck that you stay tuned.

    • #3
  4. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Another thing they get a lot of mileage out of is “storm damage.”  A huge tornado 1,000 years ago caused zero “damage” because there were no buildings.  A fairly small one two years ago might be said to have cause a million dollars of damage; this year, an even smaller one causes two million dollars of damage:  not because the storm was bigger – it was actually smaller – but because more stuff had been built that got damaged!

    • #4
  5. Randy Weivoda Moderator
    Randy Weivoda
    @RandyWeivoda

    Welcome to Ricochet, Garth!

    • #5
  6. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Party on, Garth!

    • #6
  7. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Welcome to Ricochet, Garth!

    Welcome!

    • #7
  8. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Percival (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Welcome to Ricochet, Garth!

    Welcome!

    What they said.

    • #8
  9. BillJackson Coolidge
    BillJackson
    @BillJackson

    “Do they or their producers wish to unnecessarily alarm listeners/viewers?”

    Yes, that’s what gets “engagement” and that’s all they care about. The Journal is getting worse about it thought 

    • #9
  10. DaveSchmidt Coolidge
    DaveSchmidt
    @DaveSchmidt

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Another thing they get a lot of mileage out of is “storm damage.” A huge tornado 1,000 years ago caused zero “damage” because there were no buildings. A fairly small one two years ago might be said to have cause a million dollars of damage; this year, an even smaller one causes two million dollars of damage: not because the storm was bigger – it was actually smaller – but because more stuff had been built that got damaged!

    And the price had gone up, too. 

    • #10
  11. colleenb Member
    colleenb
    @colleenb

    I was telling my husband the other day that there was no ‘climate change’s before the Weather Channel therefore we obviously need to get rid of WC and the climate will go back to normal – whatever that was.

    • #11
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.