Adrian D. Shaw wrote:
Felly sgrifennodd Weatherlawyer :
I'm not sure I understand what a statistical approach is needed for.

Because:

a) a method such as I outlined earlier could be used to show that your
methods work, scientifically, without question, or to show that it
doesn't (as the case may be), and
b) if a) proves it works, then it would form a model which could be used
to make a forecast.

If a) did show it worked, you'd have the makings of a paper which could be
published, with hard evidence, and you could then come back here and
say "I told you so". Few then wouldn't accept your methods, and those that
didn't would be those that didn't believe in science - there can't be
many of those in here. You could also potentially become quite rich, with
such a breakthrough.

But I'm afraid that, until you can do this, you won't have a lot of takers.

Show me how to set this thing up then and I will be rich and let you
borrow the occasional fiver. I can't for the life of me see how telling
people the same thing I have already told them one way will make me
rich if I tell them another.

What would make me rich is if someone takes notice and it saves their
life.

And the richest man of all time if it stops fools suggesting that it is
god's fault they built houses in silly places and paid no attention to
the things around them.

For that's the real reason I got involved in all this in the first
place. The main one at least.