"TudorHgh" wrote in message


I agree with what you say, Martin. In the current era of European
"get-togetherness" it appears increasingly out of step that we have all
these overlapping and competing national met services. It would surely
be far more cost-efficient to have a single European Weather Service.

Each of the various models gives a different output, and sometimes one is
right, at other times another one is. The fewer models in operation the slower
the rate of improvement, it would seem to me. There is a scientific case for a
certain amount of diversity.

I don't think it is possible to police the type of posts that arrive on
this newsgroup any more than for all the others is it?

For instance a certain Lunartic on here insists on posting his off the
wall forecasts. One is free to discuss or ignore as one sees fit. Only a
fool would ignore everything. Some experts tend to go to sleep at the
most inappropriate times. (I'm thinking of the football not the post by
Bill by the way... ...although...)

Here is an interesting clip from the first link: "1985: British
scientists detect sharp seasonal reductions in the earth's stratospheric
ozone layer."

Based on a plethora of inexperience and somnolence we now have a theory
of global warming that relies on and for the atmosphere as its source
and cause. No evidence from the sun and massed misdirection and
political shenanigans.

As an arm of the military, the Met Office has a fine tradition of muddle
and misdirection. (I think it's doing quite well considering.) What we
aught to do now is embrace everything that is good and just and open and
honest and above board in the EU and get out PDQ.

That's the cost effective way to go.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG