On Feb 16, 7:07*pm, Dawlish wrote:

Show me any organisation that forecasts with any decent degree of
accuracy at 10 days, including yours and I'll believe you. I really
would like to think an organisation that can do this. Why you feel you
have to withdraw, after your reaction to a request for accuracy
statistics from you being "Don't be daft". I really don't know.
Nothing is discourteous about questioning your accuracy, when you
don't provide *any* evidence for your implied assertion that you are
accurate. I don't think you (which organisation are you defending
anyway?) can forecast with accuracy at 10 days - say 60+% accuracy, in
answer to your question. If you can; demonstrate it. You were very
quick to jump in and criticise my forecasts, which have demonstrable
accuracy in what I do.

I did not jump on the accuracy of your forecasts - in fact my very
word was "kudos" to anyone who tries it. My question is regarding the
practical usefulness of forecasts issued on such a sporadic basis.

How about taking my word for the fact that I/we have a reasonable
accuracy at ten days? I haven't for one second questioned the 70-80%
accuracy you state for the forecasts you produce. What is "daft" is to
expect me to produce privileged data on an open discussion board. I
have nothing I feel that I need to prove so whether you believe it or
not does not matter but I will defend myself and forecasters in
general.

By baldly stating that you simply "do not think" that I/we can
possible forecast with any semblance of accuracy you are impugning my
integrity and professionalism, and that is more than discourteous, and
underlines why I am withdrawing from a discussion which I should
perhaps have had more sense than to enter in the first place.

Stephen.