don't understand why reputable professional forecasting services including
the UKMO don't make an effort to publicise its uselessness instead of us
doing it. They could hardly be sued because the gross inaccuracies are there
in fact and proveable. I just suppose it's the way that large organisations
feel more harm would be done by getting involved in a slanging match. Maybe.
We used to be told the same when false derogatory comments were made about
the quality of UK drinking water. Unfortunately proper experts seem to be
derided by the public while they are only to happy to believe anything in
the tabloids.
Dave
don't understand why reputable professional forecasting services including
the UKMO don't make an effort to publicise its uselessness instead of us
doing it. They could hardly be sued because the gross inaccuracies are there
in fact and proveable. I just suppose it's the way that large organisations
feel more harm would be done by getting involved in a slanging match. Maybe.
We used to be told the same when false derogatory comments were made about
the quality of UK drinking water. Unfortunately proper experts seem to be
derided by the public while they are only to happy to believe anything in
the tabloids.
Dave

"Mike Tullett" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:50:12 -0800 (PST), Richard Dixon wrote in


Given the zonal misery forecast for the rest of the month, I wonder
what Piers' excuse is ? Anyone who happens to email him, please let me
know what his response is.

I do hope for the sake of the public that this month's forecast is
thoroughly rinsed in glorious technicolour in various newspapers to
remind people that attempting to do accurate long-range forecasting
down to daily detail is a perilous process.

And I know I bang on about Piers but what has happened this month just
highlights just how hit and miss his lauded method (well, lauded by
Dennis Wheeler of Sunderland University) is and why it annoys me that
so many people in the tabloid-reading public (and beyond) are taken in
by such nonsense.

I totally agree, Rich. What annoys me most about his publicity is that it
tars all reputable forecasters with the same brush. Since we started
taking an interest in this newsgroup, his results have been next to
useless. Using climatological norms would have had a far more successful
outcome.

--
Mike Tullett - Coleraine 55.13°N 6.69°W posted 22/01/2008 11:18:24 GMT

I don't understand why reputable professional forecasting services including
the UKMO don't make an effort to publicise its uselessness instead of us
doing it. They could hardly be sued because the gross inaccuracies are there
in fact and proveable. I just suppose it's the way that large organisations
feel more harm would be done by getting involved in a slanging match. Maybe.
We used to be told the same when false derogatory comments were made about
the quality of UK drinking water. Unfortunately proper experts seem to be
derided by the public while they are only to happy to believe anything in
the tabloids.
Dave