Guy de la Bédoyère criticizes BBC's reporting of an El Niño event, finding it alarmist and lacking in scientific rigor. He argues that the BBC, particularly through the Met Office and its correspondents, uses sensationalist language and appeals to vague historical parallels to create a sense of impending catastrophe. Bédoyère highlights the repeated use of phrases like "in living memory" and "unprecedented" as a form of weather catastrophizing, drawing parallels to 17th-century practices. He contends that scientists, when faced with uncertainty, resort to religious-style pronouncements and that journalists amplify these claims with phrases like "scientists say." The article points out the selective use of information, such as omitting the complexity of factors affecting sugar production in India. Bédoyère questions the scientific basis of claims that rely on personal anecdotes and unquantified memory. He suggests that this approach mirrors ancient superstitions rather than genuine scientific inquiry. The author concludes that such reporting offers no solutions and merely amplifies fear of the unknown. He asserts that modern scientific pronouncements often lack the rigor of actual science, leading to a manufactured sense of crisis. Ultimately, Bédoyère believes that humanity has always coped with extreme weather and that the current reporting is more about speculation than solid evidence.