Meteorologist mocked for DANA warning before Valencia floods

The warning nobody wanted to hear before the DANA

Can a meteorologist be blamed when people ignore his advice? On Friday, October 25, at 11:17 AM, J.J. González Alemán, a senior state meteorologist and physicist, posted on X warning that the DANA arriving four days later would be "historic." The response was a barrage of insults: "apocalyptic," "fraud," "we're all going to die." A week later, with hundreds dead and incalculable losses, those messages illustrate the cost of climate skepticism.

What the meteorologist said and how he was attacked

González Alemán is not just any Twitter user. He is a researcher at the Spanish Meteorological Agency (AEMET), and his alert came four days in advance. Critics called him alarmist and cited past model errors. "Oh yes, just like this year's hurricane season, which, according to frauds like you, was supposed to be unprecedented," one wrote. Another added: "We're all going to die, save yourself if you can."

The physicist declined to comment. "It really stopped being a scientific topic and is very subject to distortion," he explained. He added a phrase summarizing the problem: "Reality is usually much more complex than the simple answers people always try to find."

The difficulty of warning without seeming alarmist

The uncertainty margin of any scientific model is used as a weapon. As during the pandemic, making unpopular decisions—confining, evacuating, closing—has a high political cost. But the cost of not acting when tragedy strikes is higher. Meteorologist Isabel Moreno experienced this in 2023: after a neutral tweet about drought, she received messages attributing the lack of rain to estela and geoengineering. "I started getting insulted and threatened, and that really scared me," she recalls. "Those people have always been online, but their aggression has increased in recent years."

The most cited example is from September 2023, when Madrid's mayor asked residents to stay home due to potentially record-breaking rains. The capital didn't get the expected rainfall, but deaths occurred 30 kilometers away. "The alarm was well placed," insists Moreno.

Denialism reaching government offices

Anti-alarmist skepticism isn't limited to social media. According to reviewed materials, it is fueled by right-wing parties, translating into nearly organized attacks against experts and influencing political decision-making. A warning for legislators: if the DANA hadn't been so devastating and a mobile alert had been sent, the criticism would likely have been the same.

Some argue AEMET issues too many weekly alerts, undermining credibility. Others note that the Júcar Hydrographic Confederation had flood control works stalled for 15 years due to environmental issues. A third viewpoint points out that the Júcar basin's SAIH (Real-time Hydrological Alert System) transmitted alarming data at 10:00 AM Tuesday, hours before the tragedy.

The bill for climate skepticism

Has it come at a cost? Data suggests yes. The systematic discrediting of weather warnings creates an environment where the population ignores alerts. Valencia has flood records dating back to 1321, yet each generation continues urbanizing in flood-prone areas. The problem isn't just climatic: it involves land-use planning, lost historical memory, and self-reinforcing distrust in public institutions.

The final irony: those who mocked failed alerts yesterday now demand accountability for not having warned. Like indigenous peoples sacrificing shamans when rains didn't arrive. Society doesn't devolve, but sometimes it seems that way.