Quote:
Originally Posted by Rose
Could you tell me specifically what you find so incompetent about the explanation of the possible scenarios?
|
Specifically, labeling this a dangerous storm without providing specifics as to who is in danger, and what the danger might be. And labeling it as such without providing probabilities of the 3 scenarios. The only specifics provided were "some snow, and some wind". Snow and wind, of themselves, are not dangerous. While they did mention the word blizzard -- again, no definites, no probabilities.
They also mention "one model" that was giving them the worst case scenario. But nothing about all the other models, and what they were giving. Are they a 1-model bunch? Is the model they are citing the most reliable, and the one they lean on the most?
They did a similar thing last week for the no-storm that didn't appear. Did they rely upon the same model last week as they are citing this week?
In my business, if that's the type of information and data I gave to my clients, I would be fired. If they don't have specifics, then they shouldn't be offering up the hype at this point. And Rose, even though you might be ok with their explanation of the scenarios -- please go back and re-read those explanations. They aren't based upon anything. All it was is an interesting discussion, without any basis whatsoever. This is all fluff at this point -- and they have decided to delibertly choose the most extreme scenario as their headline -- and
that's what I call incompetant reporting to their clients -- us, the public.