Alarmists never need to explain themselves
I read this article from April in the Herald Sun via JPquake (this site has a wall of shame but also cites good journalism). It’s actually an interesting one since author Andrew Bolt quotes a few of the more extreme “analysts” of the Fukushima disaster. Their predictions could’ve been ruled out even at the time they were made and seem to be fueled by an anti-nuclear agenda and sensationalism. You don’t need to exaggerate to bring your point across that nuclear power is a bad idea. For me the unsolved problem of securely storing spent fuel rods for a very long time period is reason enough to reduce the dependance on nuclear energy as quickly as possible.
The thing is, alarmists almost never need to explain themselves. They are not even put on a black list for future catastrophes. Their “analyses” are simple and headline friendly. Alarmist deliver headlines, scientists only reasons. Many people seem to believe them more than scientists who are often suspected to be on some company’s payroll if they try to put a disaster into perspective. Alarmists always have something to say, even if their source is just a photo or a couple of tea leaves.
By the time their predictions are clearly proven wrong, the disaster is already old news and the aftermath only occasionally mentioned.
And it doesn’t have to be related to Fukushima either: Investors still rely on financial services companies although they did recommend highly speculative loans yet force whole states into further debts. Analysts frequently do a worse job than some bloggers, yet are still trusted by investors.
These people have a horrible track record, but provide convenience or are useful for the moment. That’s why they never need to explain themselves.