In article aeb63d70-3fb5-44a2-b7f4-d2b0c563be13
@v15g2000yqn.googlegroups.com, says...
He is also the first to hold up his hands and admit when one of
his forecasts goes wrong.
--


Does he Col? Have you always Will? Where's the evidence? Where's the
evidence for any single Internet weather group forecaster/ hunch-
merchant being of any use whatsoever?

I fail to see the connection between "always the first to hold his hands
up" and "being of any use whatsoever". First you ask for evidence of the
former and then imply that any lack of it proves the latter.

In my 6 years of Internet
weather groups I haven't found a single one (and I really do mean not
a single one - if there is one, someone show me and if no-one does, or
no-one comes forward with their own records, it proves my point
perfectly) that has tracked their record in public,

Do they have to?

Are you suggesting that no-one (and I mean no-one, not a single person
ever, absolutly no-one) should ever publish a forecast of any kind
whatsoever on a weather (or any other type of) group without first
providing a robust system of archiving, annotating and analysing said
forecast?

Don't be so absured. If any reader takes issues with any one persons
forecasts, they can do said analysis themselves. They are the ones
wanting to prove something. It would be different if the forecaster made
claims about their ability, or the accuracy of their method. Will's
claims were sort of opposite of that.


gone back to
analyse each and every forecast, published percentage accuracy figures
on a continuous forecast-by-forecast basis and thus has left no legacy
of any forecasting prowess whatsoever.

rofl. You appear to be under the impression that usenet is a valued and
much respected medium in which people can rest their reputations.

I am sure that Will is quite happy to be judged by his peers. You know,
his fellow forecasters. The ones in the Met Office.


Internet weather group
"forecasting" is based on pure guesswork and though the guesswork mey
well be portrayed with excellent meteorologocal knowledge,
nevertheless, it is pure guesswork.


This makes no sense. Are you suggesting that qualified and highly
experienced meteorologists will somehow "forget" everything they have
learned just because they are making a post to usenet?


I'll bet you a pound to a penny that this, perfectly rational and
wholly accurate criticism, is met not with acceptance, but with
incredulance, sycophantic anectdotal evidence of the brilliance of
favoured forecasters, dismissiveness and outright anger, which will
lead to insults.

It is hardly rational. As I have shown, you are criticising on the basis
of unfounded and unnecessary demands not being met. No-one who posts a
forecast, hunch, guess or even hope neeed provide evidence of how their
forecasts, hunches, guesses or hopes have played out in the past.

Of course, if said forecaster were to crow about their prowess, or fail
to admit errors then you might be in a position to start demanding.

And seeing how your missive began as a counter to the assertion that
Will holds his hand up when he makes mistakes, it's hardly accurate
either. Indeed, up to this point you have not made a single point with
which I can agree. Further, I can't believe you post such rubbish, it's
not worth reading and you should be imprisoned for the white mans
electricity you wasted in sending it. You are pig ugly and you smell of
dog poo. (Apologies for the lack of anectdotal evidence, but not being
sycophantic, I have none to offer).


The desire to protect the "forecaster" (no matter how
idiotic the basis for the forecast and no matter how useless the
outcomes of that person's guesses over time) from the savage attacks
of commonsense and truth,

You mean the savage attacks of irrationality and misplaced scientific
dogma, shirly?

[...]

Paul

PS That applies to the idiot who thinks he has solved the problem of
forecasting earthquakes too. As soon as I debunked that, by actually
following and analysing his forecasts, sulks, insults and profanities
were offered in place of evidence that the forecasts were in any way
correct.


Oh dear. This is the bit that Will might be forgiven for being offended
at. You have on the one hand a troll who proclaims that he has a system
for forecasting and proceeds to make vague and difficult to substantiate
forecasts in the hope of getting a bite or two, and on the other, a
highly qualified meteorologist who makes a long range forecast and,
knowing that it has little scientific basis, tells their readers that
it's only a hunch and should be taken with a huge pinch of salt. You
appear to be implying that they are "as bad as each other". Oh dear,
indeed.


I think you need to think more about what people are saying paul, and
less on what you're reading on a first pass. Your missive does, I agree,
have many valid points but I think you may have done better to pick a
different, more applicable, post on which to launch your latest tirade.

You will find it difficult applying the scientific method to those who
admit to posting hunches and advising that they should be taken with a
hugh pinch of salt.

--
Alan LeHun