"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. 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, overrides everything else and the
"forecaster's" reputation is perpetuated, usually at the expense of
the inquisitor."


I couldn't have wished for a better response. Point completely proven.
Your post does all of the above. Defends the "forecaster", attackes
the questioner. Ignores the requirement for analysis of any
forecasting. Goes off at a tangent making silly references to nothing
that's actually being said and tries to deflect the issue and take it
away from the pertinence of the point..

You certainly can't show me a single person who has had any success at
forecasting; your post is a confused ramble, full of invective and
little else and yet you defend the "forecaster". Exactly what I said
would happen in my post and it backs my standpoint to perfection.
Anecdotal, qualitative, sycophantic rubbish, mixed with insult and
anger. A stereotypical response because the poster has upset you by
speaking about facts, which you would much rather ignore. Try posting
sense.

Can anyone refute my statement that; "there isn't a single internet
weather forecaster, at any range over 1 week, who is of any use
whatsoever."

I very much doubt whether anyone can, yet like Alan continue to laud
the forecaster. Simply daft.