Good summary Mike...
NWS said that if you stayed, it was almost certain you would die. 140,000 people stayed behind.
What will those 140,000 people think next time? Or what about the million+ people that left, and see those who left behind still living when they come back?
A massive number of people didn't leave after being told point blank they were quite possibly going to die if they didn't. THOSE PEOPLE WOULD NEVER LEAVE FOR ANYTHING so it doesn't matter what they heard in the warnings this time. They'd stick around for a Godzilla attack. They're going to be just as retarded next time as they were this time.
My eyes are rolling so hard I'm pretty sure they can hear it all the way in Texas.
![Smile :) :)]()
You're ignoring a large part of the equation: what would have happened if the much larger number of people HADN'T evacuated? I am not trying to build an argument that the NHC was certainly right to include that language (I don't have the data), but I think that the argument you keep making is rather silly and a touch arrogant without some sort of hard statistical data. The weather service is not Accuweather, it's not a politician -- its sole mission is to provide the public reliable information about what the weather is going to do and inform them of dangers. It doesn't hype things up for ratings, it isn't trying to save its elected position, it's trying to save lives. They've done a bang-up job in the past getting life-saving information to the public, so if you're going to say they overdid it this time, you'd better have some statistical models at hand that clearly illustrate that your position -- that people should not have been warned that there was a strong threat to their lives -- was not only right, but demonstrably right at the time that the NHC put out their advisory. Otherwise you're armchair quarterbacking an incredibly intricate and complicated job in the very worst way.
Personally, I think that not telling it to the people straight for fear that if it doesn't verify nobody will take you seriously "next time" is silly. If you take this argument out to it's inevitable conclusion, we should not be issuing tornado warnings until we see an actual tornado on the actual ground, and we should only issue them for communities we are 100% certain are going to be destroyed. Otherwise, next time, people won't heed a tornado warning. "Ah, yes, that half mile wide long track tornado is 10 miles from Oklahoma City and headed right for it but, you never know, it might lift at the last minute... better lay off the warning for now. Otherwise OKC won't take us seriously next time..."