http://my.opera.com/Weatherlawyer/blog/heres-an-odd-one

A deepish low in the otherwise flaccid lowed North Atlantic from the
middle of March gave a severe quake in Rat Islands, Aleutia.

But then a few days later a longer lasting Low in the same place
showed nothing. Was there a serious event of another nature at the
time of the second phenomenon?

On Apr 11, 9:11*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
http://my.opera.com/Weatherlawyer/blog/heres-an-odd-one

A deepish low in the otherwise flaccid lowed North Atlantic from the
middle of March gave a severe quake in Rat Islands, Aleutia.

But then a few days later a longer lasting Low in the same place
showed nothing. Was there a serious event of another nature at the
time of the second phenomenon?

Or was the first complete coincidence? It's always hindsight which
shows up these things W.

With your past record of forecasting these things, my explanation
would certainly be far more believable.

Your forecasting record marks you out as a charlatan, I'm afraid.

I said fans not fools; feck off you moron.

On Apr 11, 11:07*pm, Weatherlawyer wrote:
I said fans not fools; feck off you moron.

*))

14% over 8 monitored "forecasts".

It hurts, doesn't it?

You just don't learn, do you?

I don't read your posts. I haven't read your posts for a long time and
I steer clear of any threads you start or take a major part in.

You are no more to me that the mad Frog. It is possible to feel sorry
for you but I am not nice enough to. You are a tosser as far as I am
concerned.

Kindly go away.

On Apr 12, 3:48*am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
You just don't learn, do you?

I don't read your posts. I haven't read your posts for a long time and
I steer clear of any threads you start or take a major part in.

You are no more to me that the mad Frog. It is possible to feel sorry
for you but I am not nice enough to. You are a tosser as far as I am
concerned.

Kindly go away.

Mad frog......tosser......Ah, the insults are never far away. I know
you are not nice, W. I know you are insulting, foul and nasty when
provoked. Water and duck's back for me, as you also know.

I'm just one that actually took the trouble to assess some of your
predictions W and they were found dreadfully wanting. I hate
pseudoscience and you don't like criticism. Likewise, I don't bother
actually reading your ramblings, but I do scan a sample for
predictions. You use hopelessly limited and flawed data, not
understanding that there are thousands of small earthquakes every day,
which are not shown in the USGS lists. You then cherry pick the lists,
in hindsight most of the time, as an attempt at backing your theories.
I have noticed that since I monitored your success, you now shy away
from making outright predictions but, as with all charlatans, it's
important to remind people just how far into left field you are with
your gravity/earthquakes/weather theories. It really boils down to one
thing - and I will ignore any insults you reply with and leave you
alone again after I've said it.

No percentage outcome success: no use.

"Dawlish" wrote in message
...
On Apr 12, 3:48 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
You just don't learn, do you?

I don't read your posts. I haven't read your posts for a long time and
I steer clear of any threads you start or take a major part in.

You are no more to me that the mad Frog. It is possible to feel sorry
for you but I am not nice enough to. You are a tosser as far as I am
concerned.

Kindly go away.

Mad frog......tosser......Ah, the insults are never far away.

I actually thought he was being complimentary !!!!! Shows how wrong one can
be on occasions.

On 12 Apr, 16:48, "Lawrence Jenkins" wrote:
"Dawlish" wrote in message

...
On Apr 12, 3:48 am, Weatherlawyer wrote:

You just don't learn, do you?

I don't read your posts. I haven't read your posts for a long time and
I steer clear of any threads you start or take a major part in.

You are no more to me that the mad Frog. It is possible to feel sorry
for you but I am not nice enough to. You are a tosser as far as I am
concerned.

Kindly go away.

Mad frog......tosser......Ah, the insults are never far away.

I actually thought he was being complimentary !!!!! Shows how wrong one can
be on occasions.

I was being complimentary. You obviously have no idea what epithets
the fool should attract.

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 00:31:57 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
wrote:

On Apr 12, 3:48=A0am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
You just don't learn, do you?

I don't read your posts. I haven't read your posts for a long time and
I steer clear of any threads you start or take a major part in.

You are no more to me that the mad Frog. It is possible to feel sorry
for you but I am not nice enough to. You are a tosser as far as I am
concerned.

Kindly go away.

Mad frog......tosser......Ah, the insults are never far away. I know
you are not nice, W. I know you are insulting, foul and nasty when
provoked. Water and duck's back for me, as you also know.

I'm just one that actually took the trouble to assess some of your
predictions W and they were found dreadfully wanting. I hate
pseudoscience and you don't like criticism. Likewise, I don't bother
actually reading your ramblings, but I do scan a sample for
predictions. You use hopelessly limited and flawed data, not
understanding that there are thousands of small earthquakes every day,
which are not shown in the USGS lists. You then cherry pick the lists,
in hindsight most of the time, as an attempt at backing your theories.
I have noticed that since I monitored your success, you now shy away
from making outright predictions but, as with all charlatans, it's
important to remind people just how far into left field you are with
your gravity/earthquakes/weather theories. It really boils down to one
thing - and I will ignore any insults you reply with and leave you
alone again after I've said it.

No percentage outcome success: no use.


No insults from here either! Just an observation. You accuse WL of
"cherry picking" lists in hindsight for his (so-called crazy) ideas.
You certainly have a point about his method, but from what I have seen
of your forecasting method it involves waiting for published computer
based model predictions to become available and produced
scientifically (or maybe pseudo-scientifically) by other organisations
to operate from 10 - 15 days henceforth, and then you wait until there
is enough projected agreement between them before you decide to offer
your (?) forecast. There is a lot of "will you or won't you" talking
to yourself in the meantime in your posts before you do decide to
forecast (or not, as the case may be). I can't see where this method
has any personal input from you apart from collating existing model
information and then waiting yourself to "cherry pick" the moment to
issue your forecast. I would be grateful if you would enlighten me and
would be happy to apologise if I have totally misinterpreted your
forecasting skills. What is it that you bring to forecasting that
provides an element of originality and insight to match that which
Will Hand can explain so lucidly and well in advance, even when he has
the nerve to issue forecasts that apply to possible "knife-edge"
situations that sometimes have inherently much lower levels of
probability in advance?

Regards

Geoff

On Apr 12, 7:24*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 00:31:57 -0700 (PDT), Dawlish
wrote:





On Apr 12, 3:48=A0am, Weatherlawyer wrote:
You just don't learn, do you?

I don't read your posts. I haven't read your posts for a long time and
I steer clear of any threads you start or take a major part in.

You are no more to me that the mad Frog. It is possible to feel sorry
for you but I am not nice enough to. You are a tosser as far as I am
concerned.

Kindly go away.

Mad frog......tosser......Ah, the insults are never far away. I know
you are not nice, W. I know you are insulting, foul and nasty when
provoked. Water and duck's back for me, as you also know.

I'm just one that actually took the trouble to assess some of your
predictions W and they were found dreadfully wanting. I hate
pseudoscience and you don't like criticism. Likewise, I don't bother
actually reading your ramblings, but I do scan a sample for
predictions. You use hopelessly limited and flawed data, not
understanding that there are thousands of small earthquakes every day,
which are not shown in the USGS lists. You then cherry pick the lists,
in hindsight most of the time, as an attempt at backing your theories.
I have noticed that since I monitored your success, you now shy away
from making outright predictions but, as with all charlatans, it's
important to remind people just how far into left field you are with
your gravity/earthquakes/weather theories. It really boils down to one
thing - and I will ignore any insults you reply with and leave you
alone again after I've said it.

No percentage outcome success: no use.

No insults from here either! Just an observation. You accuse WL of
"cherry picking" lists in hindsight for his (so-called crazy) ideas.
You certainly have a point about his method, but from what I have seen
of your forecasting method it involves waiting for published computer
based model predictions to become available and produced
scientifically (or maybe pseudo-scientifically) by other organisations
to operate from 10 - 15 days henceforth, and then you wait until there
is enough projected agreement between them before you decide to offer
your (?) *forecast. There is a lot of "will you or won't you" talking
to yourself in the meantime in your posts before you do decide to
forecast (or not, as the case may be). *I can't see where this method
has any personal input from you apart from collating existing model
information and then waiting yourself to "cherry pick" the moment to
issue your forecast. I would be grateful if you would enlighten me and
would be happy to apologise if I have totally misinterpreted your
forecasting skills. What is it that you bring to forecasting that
provides an element of originality and insight to match that which
Will Hand can explain so lucidly and well in advance, even when he has
the nerve to issue *forecasts that apply to possible "knife-edge"
situations that sometimes have inherently much lower levels of
probability in advance?

Regards

Geoff- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Absolutely correct on just about all counts Geoff!

The outcome percentage success is close to 80% after well over 80
forecasts and the success percantage has amazed me to be perfectly
honest. It is very, very easy to get a 10-day forecast wrong. I'm not
in any kind of competion with anyone, least of all Will and I've been
doing this for nearly 5 years. Accurate forecasting at 10 days is
impossible on a regular basis, so how do you know you can trust the
model output that you are seeing at that distance at any particular
time? Anyone could look at the output on a particular day and issue a
forecast, but to what extent could you trust it? That's what I can
bring. I can tell you, with 75%+ accuracy that the 10-day output for a
particular date is believable, but only when my criteria for agreement
and consistency are met, which is, I agree, not often.

The measure of forecasting success is not in the production of
forecasts, it can only be judged on the success, or otherwise, of
forecasts over a period of time; the longer the better. "Nerve"
doesn't come into it. What counts is the success. That's why *******i,
Corbyn, PWS and all the others that claim success are charlatans, as
any close look at their forecasts over time reveals a dreadful lack of
success. Same with W and his pseudoscience.

Paul