Hannah is right on top of us, and because my web connection is a bit too weather sensitive, I have had The Weather Channel on all morning. What I have been hearing, casually thrown into the commentary, is blood curdling
Staffed by proclaimed experts, apparently chosen for their sex appeal and hair style potential, rather than climate skills, I have still been forced to be more than usually attentive.
We are in a peculiar eco-layer and our weather is often quite sever during these storms, although given our light population, little attention is paid. Indeed, notice some day how often the Weather Person stands in front of Virginia on the map! (Just throwing in a mild irritant there...)
Aside from the breathless, colorful comments, pushing the bounds of inflection to excite the viewer, I have heard the 3 readers between 8am and 10:30am, repeatedly use the word "hope".
"Hope" that Hanna doesn't re-emerge over water and strengthen. "Hope" that flooding in the mountains is not severe. "Hope" that Ike doesn't go into the Gulf, slam Cuba, or wipe out southern Florida. "Hope"!
In a sane world scientists report on the facts. Scientists, examine the data, and make predictions based on that data. Scientists don't "hope" for outcomes because the data is too thin to allow accuracy. And, they certainly don't present "hope" as a substitute for hard information.
Our culture has been so overwhelmed by the acceptance of faith in all scientific disciplines that public, anti-scientific "hope" has replaced wind currents, high pressure systems, rotational models, and temperature gradients in weather reporting! The science is there, in the back ground, evident in the charts and graphs, and the desperate reports based on data that are slipped in to the broadcast. But, "hope" is far too prevalent.
When did it become acceptable to parade religious dogma as scientific reporting on something that effects the lives of so many? And, make no mistake, any introduction of "hope" into an analysis of weather systems is an outgrowth of the pervasive inclusion of religion into science. It eases the way for inclusion of an entire range of Faith Based silliness into the rational and difficult task of trying to understand the world. I allows the individual to rely on imaginary internal processes, rather than a tough examination of reality.
Hurricanes, and tropical storms, are not about hope. Storm tracks will not be effected by hope. Perpetuating the idea that "hope" will provide protection, that "hope" will change complex systems, that "hope" is an adequate substitute for knowledge and hard science, is an insidious intrusion into reality that comforts those for whom learning about science and trying to understand complex systems is just too much work.
Hope that you win the lottery? OK. Hope that you get that job? Yeah, I suppose. But, hope has no place in science, or in reporting on scientific data. Hope is a concept that should be banned from the rational world of science.