I got this email from a blog reader last night and thought I’d pass it along:

From the same site you mentioned today in your blog, I thought this article was very interesting concerning the 2006 hurricane season.

I live in St. Croix in the USVI and for those of us living in “hurricane alley” we obviously put a lot of stock in NOAA and hurricane predictions. Last year most of us were convinced we were going to be destroyed by an above average hurricane season. People were buying every generator, emergency supply, and  hurricane shutter on the island. Everyone that is except for one of my co-workers, who’s great-aunt can apparently “foresee” the weather…and actually predicted in June of last year that the 2006 season would be below average with no hurricanes remotely approaching St. Croix (she also correctly predicted that we would get an above average amount of rainfall).

I just find it interesting that by coincidence or otherwise, that a 90 year old Cruzan woman could predict the weather better than a whole battalion of NOAA scientists armed with the latest forecasting technology.

Just goes to show how much variability there is in the whole “science” behind climate predictions.

Matthew L.
St. Croix, USVI
This just in: “My corn’s hurtin’” has been found to be a more reliable weather forcaster than Al Gore, who is now saying that the Bush administration is paying off scientists to poo-poo the theory of man-made global warming. Gore doesn’t address who might be paying him off to promote it, however.


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.