I read Matts forecast on TheWeatherOutlook.com and in all fairness his
forecast was dead accurate with what "could" have happened.

Forecasters aren't paid to forecast what "could" have happened. Any fool
can do that. They're paid to forecast what "does" happen. And how do we know
whether what "could" have happened could have happened. It certainly didn't
happen. Maybe it couldn't have happened. Nobody will ever know.

At the end of
the day, the models screwed up and if Matt had known that the models would
be so far out then I'm sure would have adjusted his forecast accordingly.

So his forecast is entirely dependent on the model output, and if the
model is no good then so is Matt's forecast. In what sense, then, is he a
forecaster, and if he's so clever, why didn't he foresee that the model was
going wrong? After all, he is not bound by the model in the way the Met Office
is and could have looked at it, as some of us do, and said, "Nah, can't be",
and produced a forecast of his own. But he didn't.
When he contributed to this group he struck me as a self-important little
prat, and for a student none too literate.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.