Steve Schulin wrote:
In article ,
"Rob Overfield" wrote:

My analysis: Piers Corbyn = fraudster.

You ask him to put his method under scientific analysis, and see
what he says!

Gee whiz, he might just refer to Dennis Wheeler's peer reviewed
article which reports exactly that which you appear to think undone:
Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics 63:29-34, 2001


And on the basis of that one favourable study you're willing to say he's
right? Piers loves to brag about the results but yet he is not willing to
let his methods be reviewed and tested, and for heavens sake, he's a
physicist not a meteorologist.

There's really no way to tell about the validity of Piers forecasts. You can
of course compare them with the observed weather, but, straightforward as
that sounds, it's an imperfect method since Corbyn's forecasts speak in
general terms.

A study pondered whether it was even possible to render objective
assessments of descriptive weather forecasts. Researchers Ian and Nils
Jolliffe had this tough-to-dispute summary of Weather Action's outlooks: "It
is unusual for most of the detail to be completely correct, but equally it
is rare for nearly everything to be wrong ... Some forecasts are clearly
very good, and a few are very poor, but the majority fall in the gray area
in between, where an optimistic assessor would find merit, but a critical
assessor would find fault."

And thats where he gets away with it, the forecasts are so vague, you can
read anything you like into them, depending on what you look for.

Sorry Steve, but if you want to believe the mumbo-jumbo, then that is your
right and privilege, but before you go promoting Weather Action just
consider this. If the forecasts are so good, why did his company lose money
on the Alternative Investment Market (AIM) in London? Surely if his
forecasts are so amazingly good, wouldn't you think he would have MADE
money...?
--
Rob Overfield
Hull