On May 18, 3:10*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On May 18, 12:41 pm, wrote:

On 18 May, 11:31, Weatherlawyer wrote:

On May 18, 10:19 am, Dawlish wrote:

If you've given up, that's 0/4 since April 24th. 0%. Not looking good.
Prove to me this works and I'll take an interest, as many others
would.




5.6 M. 18th May 12:17 SOUTHERN SUMATRA, INDONESIA
5.7 M. 17th may 17:08 SICHUAN-GANSU BORDER REGION, CHINA

I think that Halong -or some as yet to be storm, will make a Cat 2 out
of that. A high Cat 1 at least. Maybe it will be more tornadoes in the
USA instead but it will be a storm.


Now that is rather hard to monitor. Any cyclone that develops to a
Category 2 would verify the prediction, or some tornadoes in the USA.
There is no time limit on either. How are you supposed to be anything
other than correct on that one? There will be another cyclone, this
season, somewhere and I would happily lay money on the fact that there
will be more tornadoes in the USA! You're just going to have to do
better with explaining your forecasts than that, W! That one is not
even worth monitoring. Admit it, you've just picked two earthquakes in
the list from this site and conjured up a "storm" out of them.

http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/...quakes_big.php

There's been no earthquake in the Aleutain chain since you predicted a
6.5+mag on the 16th. 0/4 = 0% success since 24th April and during that
short time, your methods completely missed the 3 biggest events of the
year, so far; Chaiten, the Sichuan earthquake and the Myanmar cyclone.
You must see that when people really begin to monitor what you do, the
whole theory just collapses. When people sit back and ignore you, you
can claim success again and again, safe in the knowledge that your
insults and invective will keep questions away. That's why these
requests for measurable success criteria, and constant monitoring are
getting unser your skin.

I like the way you are trying to elicit a sympathy vote after
insulting, demeaning, belittling and generally vilifying almost
everyone who has ever crossed you (not everyone, I'm not including the
"perplexed" in that. If they think you are OK, that's fine, by me).
This is no "pointless task"; this is a good exercise in how to debunk
rank bad science.

Just verify what you are doing with some success in your predictions
and we'll take you seriously. That's a promise. If you cannot deliver
success, you are unlikely to enjoy the experience of being under the
microscope.