I always reckon the weather forecast should be followed by the Lotto forecast.

Someone is always to blame Poirot. There's no such thing as an accident or bad luck any more.

'Guilty of putting their families in danger?'

Yes. So are those who go bush walking, and women who walk home alone putting themselves in unnecessary danger. People who travel to countries with DFAT warnings (ie any other country but AUS), people who decide to sail around the world, and people who insist on cooking inside their houses. All carry a risk, and the user should pay for any services that are needed to get them out of trouble.

People who use drugs, people who get fat, people who dont clean out their gutters every 6 weeks. They all should have to pay!

Or we could just shoot all the lawyers of course.

It's only online anonymity that allows me to publicly admit that I'm usually in agreement with Houellebecq… but not this time.

"Someone is always to blame Poirot."

This is not true.

Someone ELSE is always to blame – without exception!

Usually it's easy to work out who: celebrities, but never us fans; politicians, but never our voting; banks, but never our borrowing; religions, but never our god; youth, but never our parenting; other people, but never my people; et cetera.

But I do agree we should shoot all the lawyers. Couldn't hurt… and at the very least we'd feel better.

Poirot, that article about the NZ BOM is not about predictions but the
alleged faking of temperature records.
That problem has been around for some time.
It is said that the records were "adjusted" to present what they wanted.
Just like the Darwin airport record.

So it is not like predicting a forecast with all the uncertainties that there are with the wx.

It looks like all wx, siesmic, building inspections etc etc are about
to stop in Italy.

http://tinyurl.com/9h7j6p2

This could blow through to aircraft service & inspection.
Emergency planning could come to a halt and those that have written
disaster plans could withdraw them.

Talking of precedents, I like this new precedent in changing the meaning of words.

Currently the Macquarie Dictionary links the term “Nazi” with Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist Party of recent memory. But some people use the word “Nazi” with respect to such contemporary conservative political leaders as John Howard and Angela Merkel. Perhaps, after a Q&A program, Ms Butler of the Macquarie Dictionary might call an emergency meeting of her anonymous colleagues and extend the definition of Nazi to read as follows: “Nazi: one who believes in or sympathises with the policies characteristic of Hitler or John Howard or Angela Merkel”. Just a thought. – Ed].

From Gerard

http://www.thesydneyinstitute.com.au/issue-159/

Anyone else got a word they need altered by the ministry of truth?

How can you make scientists responsible for their predictions ? No-one can foretell with certainty when Nature decides to play serious. At the same time they shouldn't be paid so much simply for guessing.