In article aeb63d70-3fb5-44a2-b7f4-d2b0c563be13
@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, says...
He is also the first to hold up his hands and admit when one of
his forecasts goes wrong.
--


Does he Col? Have you always Will? Where's the evidence? Where's the
evidence for any single Internet weather group forecaster/ hunch-
merchant being of any use whatsoever?

I fail to see the connection between "always the first to hold his hands
up" and "being of any use whatsoever". First you ask for evidence of the
former and then imply that any lack of it proves the latter.

In my 6 years of Internet
weather groups I haven't found a single one (and I really do mean not
a single one - if there is one, someone show me and if no-one does, or
no-one comes forward with their own records, it proves my point
perfectly) that has tracked their record in public,

Do they have to?

Are you suggesting that no-one (and I mean no-one, not a single person
ever, absolutly no-one) should ever publish a forecast of any kind
whatsoever on a weather (or any other type of) group without first
providing a robust system of archiving, annotating and analysing said
forecast?

Don't be so absured. If any reader takes issues with any one persons
forecasts, they can do said analysis themselves. They are the ones
wanting to prove something. It would be different if the forecaster made
claims about their ability, or the accuracy of their method. Will's
claims were sort of opposite of that.


gone back to
analyse each and every forecast, published percentage accuracy figures
on a continuous forecast-by-forecast basis and thus has left no legacy
of any forecasting prowess whatsoever.

rofl. You appear to be under the impression that usenet is a valued and
much respected medium in which people can rest their reputations.

I am sure that Will is quite happy to be judged by his peers. You know,
his fellow forecasters. The ones in the Met Office.


Internet weather group
"forecasting" is based on pure guesswork and though the guesswork mey
well be portrayed with excellent meteorologocal knowledge,
nevertheless, it is pure guesswork.


This makes no sense. Are you suggesting that qualified and highly
experienced meteorologists will somehow "forget" everything they have
learned just because they are making a post to usenet?


I'll bet you a pound to a penny that this, perfectly rational and
wholly accurate criticism, is met not with acceptance, but with
incredulance, sycophantic anectdotal evidence of the brilliance of
favoured forecasters, dismissiveness and outright anger, which will
lead to insults.

It is hardly rational. As I have shown, you are criticising on the basis
of unfounded and unnecessary demands not being met. No-one who posts a
forecast, hunch, guess or even hope neeed provide evidence of how their
forecasts, hunches, guesses or hopes have played out in the past.

Of course, if said forecaster were to crow about their prowess, or fail
to admit errors then you might be in a position to start demanding.

And seeing how your missive began as a counter to the assertion that
Will holds his hand up when he makes mistakes, it's hardly accurate
either. Indeed, up to this point you have not made a single point with
which I can agree. Further, I can't believe you post such rubbish, it's
not worth reading and you should be imprisoned for the white mans
electricity you wasted in sending it. You are pig ugly and you smell of
dog poo. (Apologies for the lack of anectdotal evidence, but not being
sycophantic, I have none to offer).


The desire to protect the "forecaster" (no matter how
idiotic the basis for the forecast and no matter how useless the
outcomes of that person's guesses over time) from the savage attacks
of commonsense and truth,

You mean the savage attacks of irrationality and misplaced scientific
dogma, shirly?

[...]

Paul

PS That applies to the idiot who thinks he has solved the problem of
forecasting earthquakes too. As soon as I debunked that, by actually
following and analysing his forecasts, sulks, insults and profanities
were offered in place of evidence that the forecasts were in any way
correct.


Oh dear. This is the bit that Will might be forgiven for being offended
at. You have on the one hand a troll who proclaims that he has a system
for forecasting and proceeds to make vague and difficult to substantiate
forecasts in the hope of getting a bite or two, and on the other, a
highly qualified meteorologist who makes a long range forecast and,
knowing that it has little scientific basis, tells their readers that
it's only a hunch and should be taken with a huge pinch of salt. You
appear to be implying that they are "as bad as each other". Oh dear,
indeed.


I think you need to think more about what people are saying paul, and
less on what you're reading on a first pass. Your missive does, I agree,
have many valid points but I think you may have done better to pick a
different, more applicable, post on which to launch your latest tirade.

You will find it difficult applying the scientific method to those who
admit to posting hunches and advising that they should be taken with a
hugh pinch of salt.

--
Alan LeHun

"I'll bet you a pound to a penny that this, perfectly rational and
wholly accurate criticism, is met not with acceptance, but with
incredulance, sycophantic anectdotal evidence of the brilliance of
favoured forecasters, dismissiveness and outright anger, which will
lead to insults. The desire to protect the "forecaster" (no matter
how
idiotic the basis for the forecast and no matter how useless the
outcomes of that person's guesses over time) from the savage attacks
of commonsense and truth, overrides everything else and the
"forecaster's" reputation is perpetuated, usually at the expense of
the inquisitor."


I couldn't have wished for a better response. Point completely proven.
Your post does all of the above. Defends the "forecaster", attackes
the questioner. Ignores the requirement for analysis of any
forecasting. Goes off at a tangent making silly references to nothing
that's actually being said and tries to deflect the issue and take it
away from the pertinence of the point..

You certainly can't show me a single person who has had any success at
forecasting; your post is a confused ramble, full of invective and
little else and yet you defend the "forecaster". Exactly what I said
would happen in my post and it backs my standpoint to perfection.
Anecdotal, qualitative, sycophantic rubbish, mixed with insult and
anger. A stereotypical response because the poster has upset you by
speaking about facts, which you would much rather ignore. Try posting
sense.

Can anyone refute my statement that; "there isn't a single internet
weather forecaster, at any range over 1 week, who is of any use
whatsoever."

I very much doubt whether anyone can, yet like Alan continue to laud
the forecaster. Simply daft.

In article ,
Col writes:

"Graham P Davis" wrote in message
...
Col wrote:

Ah, the good old 'European Monsoon'.
Manage to avoid that it could be a good summer.
If not, average to bad.

Like 1975?

I could do without the snow in June though!

But even June finished up well in credit. The first few days were blrak,
it's true, but the rest of the month was mostly glorious.
--
John Hall "Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always
pays off now." Anon

In article ,
Graham P Davis writes:
John Hall wrote:

I can't find a book by Lamb with a title similar to that. Are you sure
the book you are thinking of wasn't by the other pre-eminent British
climatologist, Gordon Manley? It sounds very reminiscent of his "Climate
and the British Scene". You should be able to get a second-hand copy
through Amazon with no trouble.

My 1954 copy of "The English Climate" is by C E P Brooks and, for nostalgia
freaks, comes with a foreword by Sir David Brunt.


Yes, I have that book too. I first read it when I was about fourteen and
greatly enjoyed it.
--
John Hall "Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always
pays off now." Anon

In article
,
Graham Easterling writes:
SNIP
I can't find a book by Lamb with a title similar to that. Are you sure
the book you are thinking of wasn't by the other pre-eminent British
climatologist, Gordon Manley?
--
John Hall * * * *

It's in front of me.

The English Climate
H H Lamb
The English Universities Press
1964

I believe C E P brookes did an earlier version it was based on, but H
H Lambs is a superb reference book.

I had looked on Amazon, but Lamb's version doesn't appear there, not
even second-hand. I do have the earlier Brookes book, but hadn't
realised that Lamb had subseqyently produced a revised version.
--
John Hall "Hard work often pays off after time, but laziness always
pays off now." Anon

Paul

Will's 'forecast' was just a bit of fun.

Let's stop being so overtly critical of each other, it's not good.

And can't we just be a little nicer to each other, it's not hard.

Welcome back anyway.

Quite a sunny day here, with a bit of cumulus build up but has remained dry
so far. Cold wind.

The sunshine 200 hours' mark for this month is looking like it could be
reached, just passed 170 hours.

(11:25), 10.8°C, RH 60%, DP 3.3°C, 1003 hPa (R), Wind 15 mph NW.
________________
Nick.
Otter Valley, Devon
83 m amsl
http://www.ottervalley.co.uk

Col wrote:
"smallbabe" wrote in message
...
On Mar 28, 6:46 am, "Col" wrote:
"smallbabe" wrote in message

...
On Mar 27, 7:57 pm, "Col" wrote:

"smallbabe" wrote in message

He is also the first to hold up his hands and admit when one of
his forecasts goes wrong.
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

Does he Col? Have you always Will? Where's the evidence?

In my experience, yes he does.

Where's the
evidence for any single Internet weather group forecaster/ hunch-
merchant being of any use whatsoever?

I can't vouch for any others, but I wasn't talking about any others.
I was talking about Will.

In my 6 years of Internet
weather groups I haven't found a single one (and I really do mean not
a single one - if there is one, someone show me and if no-one does, or
no-one comes forward with their own records, it proves my point
perfectly)

Erm no, actually.
You are the one making the assertion, it is up to *you* to demonstrate
your point, not challenging others to counter your argument and if they
fail to do so, considering your point to be proven.


PS That applies to the idiot who thinks he has solved the problem of
forecasting earthquakes too. As soon as I debunked that, by actually
following and analysing his forecasts, sulks, insults and profanities
were offered in place of evidence that the forecasts were in any way
correct.

Even the most casual of observers could work out that Weatherlawyer's
ramblings are utter nonsense. Only you ever actually bothered to
*prove* it

Ah, it's Weatherlawyer. I was trying to work out who the idiot was that
you were replying to, Col. The person was obviously in my killfile as I
never received the original. Killfiles are obviously useful. ;-)

--
Howard Neil

On Mar 28, 11:31*am, "Nick Gardner"
wrote:
Paul

Will's 'forecast' was just a bit of fun.

Let's stop being so overtly critical of each other, it's not good.

And can't we just be a little nicer to each other, it's not hard.

It's very hard for some people, as we all know, and the
problem is that it infects the whole site, raises the temperature and
brings out the worst in everyone.

Welcome back anyway.

You cannot be serious. This group will become fractious and ill-
tempered and no good will come of it.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

wrote in message
...
On Mar 28, 11:31 am, "Nick Gardner"
wrote:
Paul

Will's 'forecast' was just a bit of fun.

Let's stop being so overtly critical of each other, it's not good.

And can't we just be a little nicer to each other, it's not hard.

It's very hard for some people, as we all know, and the
problem is that it infects the whole site, raises the temperature and
brings out the worst in everyone.

Raises the temperature?

The global warming deniers would take you to task over that one
--
Col

Bolton, Lancashire
160m asl

On Mar 28, 2:54*pm, wrote:
On Mar 28, 11:31*am, "Nick Gardner"

wrote:
Paul

Will's 'forecast' was just a bit of fun.

Let's stop being so overtly critical of each other, it's not good.

And can't we just be a little nicer to each other, it's not hard.

* * * * It's very hard for some people, as we all know, and the
problem is that it infects the whole site, raises the temperature and
brings out the worst in everyone.

Welcome back anyway.

You cannot be serious. *This group will become fractious and ill-
tempered and no good will come of it.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.

Remember the "c" word you stooped to using Hughes? You could get
fractious and ill tempered and throw your toys out of the pram at a
cat crossing your lawn. I think you are most easily stirred
contributer to this group and you are certainly the most unpleasant to
deal with when you get angry - which happens unnecessarily often. You
are best ignored. There are other members of this group that,
fortunately, did not come out of the same mould as your foul-mouthed
self.

Hughes patently hasn't the wherewithal, but can anyone else point to a
single contributor, on here, or any other usegroup whose forecasts can
be decribed as being useful, on an outcome success basis? No-one yet
has and it is my standpoint that no-one can.