So long as we give everyone due respect AND judge any LRFs on their eventual accuracy (rather than on the number of scientific-sounding words they do/do not contain?) there should be no problems? IMO, the layman couldn't care less about references to QBOs, ENSOs, SSWs, organized/disorganized PVs or whatever...All he (I?) requires is a concise forecast that's sufficiently non-vague that it can be verified, come March...And, IMO, Ian Brown has provided just that! One thing I wonder, though: How many of today's 'experts' (habitual purveyors of Snowmaggeddon excepted) would have CORRECTLY predicted the winters of '63 or '79 in the previous November, even had all the data we have now been available to them? My guess would be not too many! :lol: