Thundersnow? Blasphemy. Arrest him!
If you read the reports in the British press, it would seem that South African legislators are so worried about panic caused by busted forecasts that they're resorting to the threat of jail and six-digit fines to coerce meteorologists into accuracy:
Weather forecasters getting it wrong for the first time could face a four or five-year sentence and a £400,000 fine.
And repeat offenders could be jailed for as long as ten years or fined up to £800,000.
When I read that this morning, the first thing out of my mouth was "What the actual fuck is wrong with those people?" After a few minutes of feeling unsettled about the story, I decided to do some digging.
It turns out that the British press is publishing misleading information about the bill. Whodathunk?
It doesn't make it illegal for meteorologists to issue bad forecasts. It makes it illegal for meteorologists who don't work for the South African Weather Service to issue severe weather warnings. That makes total sense. Here's part a statement released by the South African Department of Environmental Affairs, published by a site called Politicsweb:
In particular, the concerns appear to relate specifically to a proposed provision that prohibits the issue of "...a severe weather or air pollution-related warning without the necessary written permission from the Weather Service" and especially the possible penalty of up to R10 million or 10 years imprisonment for persons found guilty of contravening this provision.
These provisions are sincere attempts to ensure that all South Africans are protected against false, misleading and/or hoax warnings that can result, and have resulted, in undue public panic, related stress and injury, evacuations and/or the mobilisation of emergency services and subsequent fruitless and wasteful expenditure.
Think about it in American terms. The only authoritative entity in the United States that issues warnings is the National Weather Service. Accuweather doesn't issue their own warnings. The Weather Channel doesn't issue their own warnings. The only agency that issues warnings is the National Weather Service. The "weather service bill" in South Africa makes it illegal for non-governmental entities to issue warnings that could scare the public or numb them to the effects of a warning.
People are already (unsettlingly, might I add) complacent to warnings issued by the National Weather Service, but imagine having private weather companies throwing all sorts of additional warnings into the mix. Not only would you have an NWS tornado warning, but there would be an Accuweather tornado warning, a Weather Channel tornado warning, a Weatherbug tornado warning, so on and so forth. It would be a mess. Nobody would pay attention anymore because of all the noise and conflicting information, and that could cost lives.
That what the South African parliament is trying to avoid. Given that South Africa is prone to tornado outbreaks similar to what one would see in Oklahoma or Alabama, it's crucial to instill public confidence in the warnings they receive. The moral of the story is to do research before believing a bizzare story like that. I think even legislators (who do not belong to the GOP, that is) understand that meteorology is still an inexact science, and that it's impossible for forecasters to be 100% right 100% of the time.