Pages

Thursday, May 7, 2026

Mike's Minute: The economic damage caused by weather warnings


This is quite possibly from our "hopeless causes" file.

But can I at least try and make the plea that we have a look at the economic damage done by trigger-happy weather offices and compliant clickbait media when it comes to storm warnings?

Cyclone Vaianu was the latest and is hopefully still fresh enough in our memories to remind us of a week's worth of hyperbole and headline nonsense that actually caused quite a lot of damage.

Not storm damage, but economic damage.

Spending in Northland was down 48%.

Auckland down 46%.

Waikato down 52% (that would have included the Supercars that got canned).

Bay of Plenty down 68%.

Gisborne down 51%.

Hawkes Bay down 56%.

Now obviously in the middle of a storm on that blowy, old Saturday and into Sunday you have already worked out you're not booking an outdoor table for lunch.

But these figures will include the week building up to the event, the drama that started the previous Sunday, with the ever-present "keep an eye on this one" headlines, and as the week progressed, the alarmism grew. Not because alarmism was required, but because the weather wonks and the media feed off each other.

The weather people love publicity and the media, especially digital, love potential clickbait. And nothing baits your click like pending metrological carnage.

So in that prior Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, how many things got cancelled? Bookings killed? Trips binned? Decisions altered? That’s the economic damage we can avoid.

If you remember, it wasn’t until Friday they actually knew what the weather, they thought, would do.

They were still wrong. But at least by Friday they had confidence in the ensuing days. When so much of our potential economic activity got canned, they were still speculating and blabbering on about trampolines and holiday travel and telling you how to live your life.

Somewhere along the line the weather people got carried away with their own self-importance and the media gee'd them up and what is a two-day storm turned into a week-long extravaganza. An orgy of verbal diarrhoea, amping and amping and amping.

And, as the data shows, doing untold damage to regions that didn’t really need it, as well as a storm.

The forlorn hope? That this data sobers a few people up and maybe, just maybe, next time a few grown-ups drive the narrative.

Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

I share the exact same hope Mike

Hugh Jorgan said...

You may as well say "The economic damage caused by climate change hysteria," it's basically the same thing. South Island, look out, you're going to get "lashed" by, not one, but two bands of heavy rain this weekend. Better take cover!

Anonymous said...

Does that cancel out the saving of lives from the weather warnings? Mike, show us your maths.

Anonymous said...

Meantime no one mentions that 4 out of the last 5 years have been La Ninas, but as soon as a El Nino is on the horizon, its "Dont Panic Mr Mannering, the future looks decidedly COLD"

Anonymous said...

Yet we’re expected to believe that they’ve accurately modelled the climate 100yrs out …. & we should bankrupt nations on that basis 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

Anonymous said...

And hilariously the weather lady tried to justify not being good at forecasting rain is status quo when they failed to get the storms that followed the week after which arrived from the South-West. So, an agricultural country with farmers having relied on the last 75yrs of meteorological forecasts only to find out now they have never been very good at predicting rain. Time to let the economists have a go at it.

Anonymous said...

Still waiting for Mike to show his numbers. He’s full of hot air.

Post a Comment

Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.