In article .com,
"Science Cop" wrote, in part:

Steve Schulin wrote:
"Science Cop" wrote, in part:
wrote:
It's been pretty quiet in Carribbean since Roger made this comment.
Here's yesterday's press release from the Solar Weather Technique
forecaster:

It wasn't quiet at all. ...

Your point might be more appropro had my 'pretty quiet' comment been
made in a vacuum rather than in the context provided by Roger, which you
prefer to snip.

Coppock's comment was that this has been a busy year with storms raging
without relief every few days. I snipped it because the comments I was
making was going to be long enough without carrying Coppock's comment
not relevent to the points I was making.

Well, if you hadn't snipped the context, perhaps you'd describe it
better here and now too.

...
Highly accurate predictions of Wilma's path were valuable -- Corbyn was
silent. ...

I'm not sure the routine scope of his forecasting. Maybe he'll be higher
profile on such matters next year.

... Predictions on tropical depression #27, now defunct, are
worthless -- Corbyn crowed.

Well, the Solar Weather Technique has shown some forecasting skill, as
described in the peer reviewed article previously cited here in
sci.environment. I think Corbyn's recent forecasts of severe weather
will be worth something to folks deciding whether to purchase his
forecasts in the future.

TODAY 14th Nov a new Developing Tropical Depression/Storm - 'Storm 27'
formed* in the Carribbean confirming the Weather Action long range
forecast for formation of such a storm in the time window 13th-16th

THIS IS NOT WHAT WAS PREDICTED.

Specifically a "major Tropical Storm or hurricane" was predicted.

A "tropical depression" was never mentioned.

That's true enough. The fact remains that the biggest storm since
Tropical Depression 26 formed when and where Corbyn forecast.

It's not the "biggest storm" in the Carribean. The low-pressure
formatation located off the coast on Nicaragua is, but it has neither
name nor number, because the weather service does not give names or
numbers to low pressure areas. At any given minute there are several
dozens of low pressure areas and high pressure areas chasing each other
around the world.

Your definition of storm seems broader than is typical. How many of the
areas you mention have surface winds that meet the tropical depression
criteria, speed-wise, for example?

The total amounts of energy expendatures of these system are more
important than hurricanes in the global weather picture. Any theory
which only deas with a few events and not the majority of weather is
inherently defective.

One theory, the scientific one which Corbyn spurns, explains both the
highs & lows and tropical cyclones. That's the difference between
science and superstition. Science exlains comprehensively.

Well, I'd love to learn of a comprehensive theory of climate. And if
your notion of comprehensive was more typical than your notion of storm,
I'd be interested in how a comprehensive explanation could be so poor,
prediction-wise, beyond the very near term. The UK Met Office has in
recent weeks forecast a very cold winter for British Isles, for example.
I recall that when Canadian government was way off on seasonal forecast
in recent years, their top forecast official made public apology. If the
UK forecasters similarly miss the mark this time, is there anybody here
who doubts that "global warming" will be prominently proferred as reason
why it wasn't so cold?

...
As a Moonie I expect you to recite Moonist Doctrines to keep sheeple
superstitious and seperate from science.

Why do you imagine me to be a Moonie?

Corbyn's prodictions cannot be found in the archives of the web.
Here's the google.com search for http://weatheraction.com/
http://tinyurl.com/cccrq
Showing web page information for http://weatheraction.com/
Nor future or past predictions there.

Here's the links to
http://tinyurl.com/9d2p8
Results 4 linking to jakFLlpxPe0J:www.weatheraction.com/
Nor future or past predictions there.

Here is all the pages on Corbyn's website known to google.com
http://tinyurl.com/a7efb
Results 1 - 1 of 1 from weatheraction.com

You NEVER post links showing where you obtained these forecasts or
press releases. They cannot be located anywhere on the web using google
search engine. You are evidently on a private mail list.

The only place I've seen the WeatherAction news releases is the yahoo
group called ClimateSceptics.

Corbyn has made statements which are blatently false and fraudulent. He
morphs his predictions to fit the weather -- current example "major
Tropical Storm or hurricane) has morphed to "tropical depression",
although each of these terms has precise scientific definition. A
"tropical depression" is not a major or minor "tropical storm" and it
also is not a hurricane.

It's true enough that the expectation of tropical storm or hurricane was
not fulfilled by Tropical Depression Twenty-Seven. At 4 AM on November
15, 2005, the National Hurricane Center discussed TD27, noting, in part,
that "THE OFFICIAL INTENSITY FORECAST IS SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS ONE AND
SHOWS THE SYSTEM BECOMING A HURRICANE OVER THE WESTERN CARIBBEAN." That
Corbyn publicly expressed expectation about three weeks prior that such
a storm would form around Nov 13-16 is clear enough.

You are aiding and abetting the commission of a science hoax by making
any fuzzy morphing of the facts generated by satellites and hurricane
hunter planes dropping dropsonde scientific instruments into this
depression.

Corbyn is a lying parasite on science, and you are a lying parasite on
Corbyn.

Well, I'm just a guy who sees your kinds of ad hominem arguments a lot
from folks who are alarmed by CO2 emissions. I try not to let my opinion
of you as a person detract from any weight of your arguments.

I'd like to mention
that Corbyn's presentation to Institute of Physics included discussion
of the importance of Earth's magnetic field too, including the role of
changes in the field on climate.

It was nice of the Institute of Physics to politely listen to Corbyn's
presentation. Do you have a transcript we can read of what was said?
Another case of absent links to non-information.

I've previously posted link to a copy of the very interesting
presentation slides archived at Institute of Physics. Please feel
welcome to let me know if you have trouble finding the powerpoint file.

It is true that Weather Action does not
provide replicable methodology for public review.

That is not a "wrong". They have freedom to make disclosures or
withhold disclosures. They do not have freedom to make fraudulent
statements regarding the historical record of storms, or make false
statements about the known science of understanding storm genesis. You
don't know how to discriminate between rights and wrongs. Or else you
are acting as accomplice to frauds.

There's other possibilities. I don't claim that Corbyn is right. I do,
however, observe that the folks who say he must be wrong don't seem to
have any good reasons. And that, kookAmongUs, includes you.

Other scientists are
sure free to choose to ignore the prospects for further publiic
scientific inquiry.

Scientific enquiry has debunked Corbyn's thesis. The Earth's
magnetosphere operates at levels usually above level of weather. There
are no known, no postualted, interactions which can form as the basis
for providing targetted location-secific predictions far in advance.
Corbyn cannot do it, and nobody else can either, using any elucidated
principles of physics.

Yet the peer review literature includes a paper describing earlier
version(s) of his Solar Weather Technique as yielding skillful
predictions.

I have stated that "intuition" has a known explored scientifically
demonstrated existence. "Intuition" may be a mental computation process
evaluating myriads of factors on a subconscious level, finally popping
up some prediction into the conscious realm. The holder of the
prediction produced by "intuition" may simply be wrong about the
reasons why they hold a belief in the prediction. One cannot be more
explicit lacking "Corbyn's Reasons" for believing his predictions --
they cannot be independently replicated and tested with vigor. Corbyn
is not scientific. There is no hypothesis, tests, replication and
reproduction, required to be "science". Whatever Corbyn is, it is not
science until these conditions have been met. Corbyn is a "lucky
guesser", whose luck partly requires post-hoc morphing of facts to
conform to prediction, and morthing of terms in predictions to better
conform to post-hoc reality. It's an age-old con-game.

I'm glad we agree that replicability is a pillar of science. But just
because he keeps his proprietary methodology secret does not mean that
his work is unreplicable in the sense that "If it ain't replicable, it
ain't science." If I could jump to unwarranted conclusions as easily as
you, perhaps I'd agree with you more often.

I suspect, however, that much more research will be
done by many folks, despite the risk of defamatory ravings from peers
and kooks alike.

Corbyn's peers are kooks, and Schulin is an example of raving done by
them, attempting to insert Moonie subversion of science by lying about
Corbyn's weak success record, lying about his actual failure record,
and erasing all embarrassing evidence from the record.

Your claims might be more persuasive if you would back up your blather,
bub.

Very truly,

Steve Schulin
http://www.nuclear.com