"David Mitchell" wrote in message
...
It would simply be guesswork, not bravery, and such 'forecasts' would have little or no value.

Far from it. What do you learn from predicting a near certainty? A high percentage of accuracy.
What if you test your theories when certainty is unclear? A high percentage of inaccuracy. But
if you analyse your predictions and learn from that, then you you have a better chance of being
able to predict with a greater certainty in the future.

Fair enough in general terms, if you are trying to refine your knowledge about some field and
testing out alternative hypotheses.

However, underlying Dawlish's approach is the fact that on most days, it is *impossible* to give
a 10-day forecast with a useful degree of confidence.
To give a forecast in those conditions is pointless.

And as I have said on several occasions, the absence of a forecast is actually more useful,
providing information about the uncertainty.

What is more useful? Someone who gives you an answer that is more often wrong than right, or
someone who says truthfully "I don't know (and neither does anyone else)".