smith25

Some more info to add to the discussion: http://www.spaceandscience.net/

Ah yes but you never said anything when GWO offered to sell it for a donation ( min donation 25c) to cover website fees and the option to donate more money if you deem it worthy. He at deserves at least this much for 18 years worth of work. Give the poor man a break.

Excellent so at least you would read it. Doesn't matter what your current opinion is as if the evidence is good enough then you can't deny the link. Oh and what do you think the implication are?.

Sorry for being ignorant but are you saying that you wouldn't read the research even if a copy was given to you.

GWO How about giving a copy of the book for free to the biggest doubters on here to see if you can change their minds such as Dev, Roo and John holmes, although john isn't so much a doubter but his opinion would be greatly valued.

That would be a very good option!. I'm sure Dev wouldn't be concerned about 12p of his money to read it. And perhaps JH might take alook and you never know where it might lead to!.

Well you've got to laugh! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfHW7KR33IQ 30,000 scientists to sue al gore

Thats alittle odd. So there happy for their names to be released if i pay £5 for your book???. Releasing there names isn't showing any of the data contained but if its been "reviewed" but respected members in the field then it might make the difference between people purchasing or not purchasing.

Thankyou for that but what about their names. You claim they are happy to put their names to your work so im sure they won't mind. I'm just wondering why you didn't chose any climatologist to review. Also under your press releases across the net you mentioned the word peer review (sorry if this wasn't you) but here your stateing it hasn't been peer reviewed.

GWO i don't know if i missed this but could you please give us the details of the people who peer reviewed your research.

typical! someone had to mention a lack of volcanic activity.... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...html?source=rss

im going for 2.9

put me down for 15.1... just an uneducated guess

i'll got for just above average 16.5

if you want more press sensationalism then wait for the media quotes such as "2007 - The year without a summer"

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20070710/tuk-...nt-dba1618.html .... Very strange

Well this is my first post for awhile... And i stumbled upon this video clip: http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html Wait for his conclusion at the end and discuss

I still have a good feeling that the essex and EA area are going to get hit hard too... i think certainly more than 5cm with maybe 10cm being more widely reported in lucky areas. I also believe theres going to be more surprises tomorrow morning!!.

Lol at the moment there is a good chance that the physic weather prediction will come true

Sorry but the average person on the street doesn't have your wisdom and will read it exactly as it states cold/warm wet/dry and thats exactly how they see it. They need to be more specific Like "we predicted ealier that winter would be above average but its now looking like theres a greater chance of colder weather during the later part of winter".

well its looks like they have covered all eventualitys...warm/colder than average and wet/dryer than average.......

Is polar vortex going to make you change your winter forcast?

Don't tease us with those winter years....thats just cruel.

Sorry enforcer but i completely disagree with you on this as todays SST anomolys look nothing like november 1998. For a start we don't have that massive positive anomoly in the middle of the atlantic instead we have a colder and slightly negitive pooling. We also have a positive area in the north sea in 05 rather than a negitive in 98. North of russia theres a negitive pooling unlike todays which is postive. latest map https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/products/NCODA/U..._sstanomaly.gif 5th Nov 98 https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/products/OTIS/AR..._sstanomaly.gif

Yes it could certainly make the differerence when it comes to a marginal snow event.