Dear NOAA - 

John Eise is more right than wrong - - 
And Rebecca Lindsey is more wrong than right.

After all, the Titanic did make it 2/3s of the way across the Atlantic -
without any problems.

The temperature outlook completely missed the overall pattern.
NOAA painted it as north-south and it was east-west.
A quick glance - with or without the math - would suffice.

The precipitation outlook was also badly off.
NOAA said California would have another dry winter.
That is a Titanic-level error this season.

And as for the math - 
(I have a stats background in addition to my history doctoral work.
And I received 800s on both the SAT and GRE exams.)

If you have 3 options - more, neutral, or less - 
And you have 3 results - more, neutral, or less - 
Then you can have 9 possible results:
More-more; more-neutral; more-less
Neutral-more; neutral-neutral; neutral-less
Less-more; less-neutral; less-less.

Technically, you have only a 1/3 chance of getting it right.
but if neutral is a wash on either end,
then your chances of getting it wrong drop to 2 in 9.
i.e. Only more-less or less-more would be considered wrong.
I'd take those odds in Vegas any day.

<<<>>>

One of the reasons for the dramatic deline in public trust
in government, in business, in education - 
is the near-reverential dependence on the algorithm
despite all evidence to the contrary.

This year's NOAA outlook was way off the mark.
If the algorithm says otherwise - 
perhaps it is time to reconsider the algorithm.
Or else buy a ticket on the Titanic.

Regards - 

John Egan
Buffalo, WY

PS -
I am reminded of the famous epitath in Tombstone, Arizona.
"Here lies Lester Moore
Four slugs from a '44
No Les, no more."