On Jul 23, 9:43*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
On Jul 23, 9:19 pm, wrote:

On 23 Jul, 20:14, "Martin Rowley"
wrote:

... missed this yesterday:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporat...r20080722.html

a feather in the cap for the Met Office.

Julia has also just become the first female President of the Royal
Meteorological Society, a fact which I'm surprised was not mentioned
in the release ...

A climate scientist eh? Perhaps with her enhanced super computer
powers she could have a look at the floormat foible that is still
uncorrected in the 2004 data archives.

She's a scientist, W. Look up what one is, then follow what scientists
always do - postulate a theory, then subject it to rigorous testing by
yourself, then by your peers (of course, that would encompass a
humility, that would allow you to think you may have peers). If it
doesn't stand up to that; re-think and figure that it may be worth a
soul-searching spell in a dark room, for a few years.

Your theories, so far, don't stand up to that testing and I know it is
driving you crazy that someone is actually tracking that. Predict us
an earthquake, that would be unpredictable by modern methods (ie
predict us any earthquake; time, location and intensity). Or predict
us something else that could not be predicted by earth sciences, or
meteorology. When you do that, someone might take you seriously. Do it
twice and you'd have a lot of people intested, Do it 3 times and you'd
have the makings of acceptance.

Can't be that difficult, surely?