On Feb 16, 8:30*pm, Stephen Davenport wrote:
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.

Sorry Stephen. If you'd published your forecasts and shown us your
accuracy, then I'd accept your accuracy claims. ATM, I don't even know
who you work for, never mind who you are. You've implied 10-day
accuracy in your forecasts. All I'm asking you to do is to show us.
Tell me first who I'm talking to and which company you are defending.
If your data is "privileged, that's fine by me; just dont expect me to
accept that without seeing any forecast, or being able to judge any
outcomes! Now that would be daft! Piers Corbyn's data is priviledged
too. There is no discourtesy from me and I don't mean any, but if you
claim all these things in terms of accuracy, the least you could do is
tell us who you are and show us something about the accuracy of your
forecasts.