Nothing yet on www.weatheraction.com, but Piers Corbyn has sent via e-mail the following list of links about the Solar Weather Technique conference of Oct 28:
- Andrew Orlowski, The Register: 1. Climate Fools Day rallies the heretics
- Andrew Orlowski, The Register: 2. Renegade weatherman drops his kimono Moon also plays part in solar method, says Corbyn
- WSM: Renegade weatherman casts light on sunspot predictions
- BBC EarthWatch Richard Black: Magnetic attraction of climate ‘scepticism’
- Piers Corbyn Opening remarks video KaneTV
- Sammy Wilson DUP MP at end of conference video KaneTV
Not many words out yet about WeatherAction’s “Climate Change, The Solar Weather Technique & The Future of Forecasting”, the conference organized by Piers Corbyn and hosted by the Imperial College in London on Oct 28. Amazingly, BBC’s Roger Harrabin just spoke about it during the midnight BBC Radio4 news, in rather neutral and very appropriate tones as far as I can remember (nothing has surfaced in the BBC News site as yet).
Myself, I have been able to get to the conference and back, just in time and only to hear Corbyn’s opening remarks, when he lamented the immorality of the mainstream obsession with CO2 and compared his work to longitude measurer Harrison, rejected by the scientific and political establishment for a long time despite being right and only winning acceptance by winning the acceptance and trust of users (the Royal Navy, according to Corbyn)
The feeblest of minds will see this as a sign of failure.
The rest of us should instead take notice that WeatherAction’s forecasts can be and are at times falsified. The same cannot be said of the usual AGW predictions…
Note 23 Jan from Piers Corbyn re letter 21 Jan and ‘on-line’ comments in The Times:
1. Our long range forecast for January particularly* in most of England and Wales has – exceptionally – been a failure for most of the month and two reasons for this are mentioned in the correctional update on our website www.weatheraction.com One reason was to do with the timing of events originating on the sun, the other was a data transfer error. The consequence has been – and independent monitors have said – this is exceptionally the largest forecast error we have made for years. In view of our data transfer error we will compensate forecast subscribers appropriately although please note the terms and conditions do not give us any duty to so do.
(* For Scotland and parts of Northern England and Northern Ireland the often cold and snowy weather is more in line with our forecast for southward shifts of the jet stream at times – which we had expected to shift further).
2. Observers should note that our forecast never said this January would be ‘more like 1740’ (than 1987) and concerning the end November / start December storm period we never said gales of the severity of the 1703 windstorm. In both cases we clearly said the weather would NOT be as extreme as then. People who claim we said such must please quote sources and say by whom such mis-information has been put about and for what purpose.
3. It is noteworthy that Paul Simons did not feel confident enough that our actual forecast would go wrong to wait for it to do so; and instead chose to make a false statement about our forecast (of an “apocalyptic freeze” in the first week) which he could instantly denounce since it wasn’t physically possible for such to occur after such a short duration in the British Isles. This we find doubly unacceptable since Mr Simons was sent forecasts in advance and could read what we actually had said.
4. Objective independent measures (by academics, subscribers and weather bets) of our Weather Action long range forecasts show they are much better than chance – ie significantly skilled – and much better than any others available anywhere in the world. For more about proven skill and priase from subscribers visit eg our British or european website www.lowefo.com )
5. We are an advancing science and a proportion of forecasts will go wrong and subscribers – in farming, business and commerce – recognise this and stay with our forecasts for years because they are profitable for their business. Our succes and sales enable ongoing research to improve forecasts so now they more skilled and include more detail. Indeed application of our Solar Weather Technique has been extended in trials to other parts of the world (see eg http://www.lowefo.com re our first trial forecast for tropical cyclones in the Bay of Bengal which correctly predicted the Cyclone which became the terrible storm Sidr last year).
6. It is sad that some seek to misrepresent our work (other than noting genuine forecast errors in a fair minded way) rather than say attacking – if they have a driving desire to attack long range forecasts – forecasts from others which are made at public expense and were so misleading to UKplc (eg) over the summer. The reasons for such extremely churlish behaviour must surely be about something other than forecasts and I suggest often are more to do with the desire of proponents of ‘man made global warming’ to claim all weather extreme events as “theirs”. Our success at predicting extreme events and long periods of high risk of extreme weather variations using solar-based methods is not something they want to countenance.
Thank you, Piers Corbyn
Since I couldn’t get enough connectivity in the conference hall tonight, here are my quasi-live notes about President Václav Klaus’ Inaugural Annual GWPF Lecture at The Great Room of Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufacturers and Commerce in London (UK):
(these notes are provided as they are, with very little corrections – I will post my own reflections later)
(UPDATE: see also Reuters)
Atrocious weather getting worse…is Al Gore in town, by any chance?
Around 70 people. Klaus’ book free to all attendants.
I meet Rupert Wyndham of BBC’s Complaint Procedure fame
Packing up quickly. Many are diplomats, as I have later learned.
7:07 Lawson and Klaus
Peiser starts. There is a lectern this time and a microphone. Videorecording equipment.
Klaus introduced as political leader but also an intellectual, of the classical liberalism variety: individual liberty, limited government, freedom to dissent.
“couldn’t have chosen a more appropriate speaker”
Copenhagen failure, Climategate, IPCC debacle: change in the political atmosphere.
Pres Klaus has been calling for rational and freedom-loving people to respond to the threat posed by collective environmentalist hysteria.
Klaus’ accent sounds better than mine
Special thanks to Nigel Lawson. Large range of institutions that support those that doubt current-prevailing dogma. This is not enough. Bias, carefully-organised propaganda needs to be countered with rationality.
Cites Bob Carter. The issue is not the warming, but the “dangerous human-induced warming”. Scientific debate is not about the policy. Public-policy debate has enormous implications. Governments, politicians, lobbyists search to grab more decision power for themselves.
Response to climate change can become the most costly mistake in history after Communism.
Cites McKitrick. Nobody is an expert on global warming. Too many aspects. Every body is an amateur on many if not most topics.
There are many respectable but highly-conflicting scientific takes on the subject. We must resist the attempt to shut down the debate. Real risk is to end up renouncing democracy.
Need to separate environmentalist myths from theories.
Has followed the literature. Carbon dioxide is a minor player, not primary cause of global warming. Cites Nobel-laureate: carbon dioxide across geological scales. Planetary changes don’t ask for permission.
Dangerous public policy consequences: many have concluded the current hypothesis is very weak. Not sufficiently tested. Can’t be used for policy decisions without looking at alternatives, opportunity costs, etc.
That is why he wrote the book about “green shackles”. (humor: since you’ve all got it, no need to continue speaking). Published in 16 different languages including Japanese and Arabic.
A year after publication, “Appeal to Reason” by Nigel Lawson. Klaus wrote the preface.to the Czech edition.
We are not on the winning side yet, but looking back since the launching of the AGW propaganda at the Rio Summit in 1992 and subsequent general pickup of the hypothesis, things have been improving.
Reputation of the scientific integrity of some of the most prominent researchers has been undermined, eg the Hockey Stick that was the basis of the 2001 IPCC report: pseudoscientific mindset, faulty data selection, frenzied propaganda, unscrupulous campaign, dubious statistics, etc etc (it’s a citation)
Copenhagen 2009 showed heterogeneity of views,
Three simple facts GW armies should keep in mind
1- Global mean climate does change, has changed, and will undoubtedly change
Over last 10k years, climate has been much the same and average temperature has not changed. Long-term, slight cooling.
GW armies are presenting a few decades as a threat to the planet to respond to with a wholesale change of our lifestyles.
Why are they so successful? Doctrines usually take much longer. Specifics of our time? Constanlty online? Religions less attractive? Desire to refill the emptiness with a new noble cause, saving the planet?
Environmentalists discovered some “more noble” than our down-to-earth lives. Can’t be accepted by somebody that lived under “noble” communism.
2- Medium-term timescales, 150 years (joke about Keynes), temperatures have shown a warming.
This is since the Northern Hemisphere emerged from the LIA two centuries ago. Trend was repeatedly interrupted.
Warming is modest and everything suggests future warming and consequences are not a cause for concern and something to battle against.
3- CO2 in atmosphere sometimes precedes, sometimes follows temp increases. Not fully understood.
No need to dispute those facts. Dispute is when people claim the coincidence in time is a “proof” of AGW. This is the current doctrine. This has existed for centuries, always with nature as the “starting point” to go back to. People are considered a foreign element. But it makes no sense to speak of a world without people, because there would be nobody to speak to (laughter).
Mentions his studies of econometric modelling. No conclusion can be based on correlation of two or more time sequences. So simple correlations do not exist.
Eg CO2 emissions did not start to grow visibly until 1940s. Temperatures at times moved in the opposite way of CO2.
Statistical analysis doesn’t demonstrate anything. Two Chinese scientists used random walk model for global temp variations. Result shows the model perfectly fits the data. No need to add human effects. No other model has given a btter fit.
There are other aspects of the doctrine, not just the simple relationship between temps and CO2. Another is the idea that increasing temperatures will be detrimental to the planet.
Many environmentalists don’t want to save man, but nature. Economics for them is irrelevant. For example the Stern review and its unreasonably low discount rate (that was what prompted Klaus to join the debate). The choice of discount rate is critical (cites Lawson). High discount rate=little meaning in any intervention.
We should use the market rate, as it is the “opportunity cost” of climate mitigation. Stern and others do not want to do that.
Klaus doesn’t deny increasing temps will see losers and winners. Even if overall is going to be detrimental, with proper discount rates the consequences are too small to worry about.
Why do many people think differently? Many have invested too much in GW alarmism. Fear of losing out on the political and professional side. Biz people hoped to make a fortune and are not ready to write it off. There is a coalition of powerful special interests endangering us. (hence the subtitle of his book.
We need to stand up against all attempts to undermine our democratic society.
We need to be prepared to all kinds of future climate changes but never accept to lose our freedom
ends at 19″43
room is packed. >100
there is a video being taken
Peter Glover: Arctic forum. No engagement at all on the two sides. The “other side” never seems to have thought things through logically.
Klaus: Many scientists are engaged Journalist in The Times keeps receiving articles and books about the dogma. The fact that the other side doesn’t listen is not new to people that lived under Communism.
Q: Roll back the ETS in Europe?
Klaus: Cap-and-trade is one of the policy measures in the hands of the environmentalists. It’s not just the USA staying away from it. But the EU is post-democratic (laughter)
Hartwell (metallurgic engineer): Presentation is political. Royal Society published paper on climate change. Many scientists there are seriously interested. We should manage the risk of future rises in temperatures
Klaus: Not impressed by science established by committee or vote. Remember nobody is an expert in GW. Another quote from Bob Carter: wide range of disciplines among “climate” scientists. Most alarm from scientists from meteor and computer modelling. Geologists see no cause for alarm.
Klaus says he has used computer models too. Computer modellers are not climatologists.
Q: Ecological modernisation used by many groups to look for environmental problems to push for technology. Amount of money in the academic community is very strong. WG-III is real push for IPCC.
Klaus: can’t understand sustainable development. Environment should be differentiated from GW.
Physicist: Comment on RS. Previous head didn’t’ give space to “deniers”. current document requires further revision. Draft Copenhagen agreement deals with putting together a world government (57? 58?). Why didn’t you use that?
Klaus: Only retirees dare write against AGW. COP-15 was so confused there was no point to go there. Details impossible to follow and not relevant. Documents have no writers and no readers
Q: Bloggers have changed the nature of the debate
Lawson: Yes. Extremely-expensive decisions should not be taken without a proper debate and there hasn’t been one. The RS has been obliged to move a little bit, not much, but more than nothing. Even the BBC says dissenting voice ought to be heard.
What would convince Pres Klaus that there is something to worry about? What would he choose, climate disruption or liberty?
Klaus: Empirical evidence is what is needed. Starting point still remains. Quality of measurements for example is important. Models are not convincing, too many mistakes in the methodologies, statistics, I am not convinced
Philosopher: The psychological side. Green lobbyists want to have cars and dirty industries banned. They found the scientific reason in AGW. Political agenda feeds on fear.
Klaus: One reason for scaring us disproved, another one pops up. My interests at the beginning of the 1970a. Could get only economical reviews and scientific publications. Couldn’t understand Club of Rome and Limits to Growth. That’s total nonsense. Same computer modellers of LtG continued with AGW. Same people.
Q: AGWers are organised by somebody?
Piers Corbyn: Prepare for extreme events…ask the UN to do that?
Klaus: Anybody controlling? People that have outlived communism are oversensitive regarding the issue of getting controlled
Q: Oxford Union debate, victory. Other side went for ad-homs. Wind farms are completely useless and evidence is transparent. How do rational politicians live with that knowledge?
Klaus`; Times journo asked if other leading politicians are against AGW? Many have similar views but are afraid to say it openly. Anecdote. Some nonsense is very evident. Solar energy during the night. Wind farm generation by electrical motors.
Lawson concludes. Mentions Klaus’ bravery as he is still in office.
end at 20:29
This is the ordered list (oldest item first) of yesterday’s evening live microblogs on my mmorabito67 Twitter account, about the Royal Institution (London) debate on Global Warming and Disasters with Roger Pielke Jr, Bob Ward and Robert Muir-Wood moderated by the Guardian’s James Randerson:
- 12 years in London , 1st time at Royal Institution http://tweetphoto.com/10490288
- Ward first to show up – seats comfortable for shorter people than me
- It’s all set- Pielke Jr looks even more satisfied than on his blog
- Bespectacled aloof guy must be Rhys-Jones – Pielke and Ward have briefly looked friendly
- Starts as soon as Piers Corbyn joins spectators
- BBC Shukman nowhere to be seen -Guardian environment editor introduces topic mentioning also recent IPCC disasters
- Spectators asked about debate’s question – semantics discussion ensues – this is going to be fun
- Is the moderator talking about AGW ? Most people do not answer as question appear ill-posed
- Moderator is James Randerson – bespectacled guy is Muir-Wood talking now
- Muir-Wood “Hype around disasters costs has actually decreased over the past decade”
- Muir-Wood 2003 heatwave saved people in 2004 – paradox easily explained (by considering people cared more about the elderly in 2004 given the experience of 2003)
- Muir-Wood mentions Hohenkammer Report – flood defences helped decrease risk in Japan
- Muir-Wood no trend 1950 2005 but reduction largest losses – trend from 1970s
- Muir-Wood recent trend heavily depends on 2004 2005 hurricanes – conclusion in 2008: “insufficient evidence”
- Ward ‘s turn – says he is no climate researcher – explainer to policymakers – starts with IPCC WG1
- Ward: climate change as trends but extreme events expected to increase – somebody laughs
- Ward repeats IPCC verbatim – importance of frequency but also of people exposure and vulnerability
- Ward shows not-normalised graphs – why? – then normalization studies – 2 with and 2 without trends
- Ward: WG2 and Stern used 2% trend – increasing! That is how Stern computed 1% GDP !!!
- Ward ends nevertheless saying evidence is not conclusive of climate impact on future losses
- Pielke presents as a non skeptic worried about exaggeration says IPCC has done it wrong
- Pielke talks of Hohenkammer workshop – not possible to determine attribution to climate change
- Pielke: over climatic timescales societal changes are extremely important
- Pielke: even Schmidt et al 2009 mentioned by Ward conclude finding no evidence
- Pielke: no evidence of changes to worldwide hurricanes – list of peer reviewed studies all agreeing
- Pielke shows misleading IPCC graph contested by 2 reviewers – reply by IPCC author was completely wrong
- Pielke: IPCC failed comprehensively on this issue
- Cheeky Pielke shows reasonable Ward statement in Guardian Jan 26 2010
- Very unclear what they disagree on?
- Ward says IPCC should be improved not scrapped
- Questions why decarbonize? what is disagreement? (that’s me) glacier dates important?
- Pielke: even if there were large signal disasters, it’d all be better dealt with adaptation- need to decarbonize to provide energy to all
- Muir-Wood without IPCC it would be a normal scientific debate-high profile and contentious – costs are very important
- Ward says IPCC was accurate – Pielke and Muir-Wood agree with each other but not with IPCC – all we need now is a kiss
- I wish people went straight to question
- Corbyn ‘s turn- will panel agree to scrap IPCC and prepare for actual disasters – recommends own site
- Muir-Wood says why he believes there is something going on – mentions IPCC deadlines as an issue (in the times of Wikipedia)
- Pielke says debate on physical questions not appropriate tonight – mentions institutional problems in IPCC
- Ward debates Corbyn
- Q: how to recoup IPCC authority- money wasted on maybe’s, could’s, etc
- Ward: most IPCC work is for free – whole thing matters in comparison to unknown consequences
- Ward makes moot point against complete unbelievers
- Pielke says there is a problem with work done on the cheap
- Ward revelations have not changed basics – but question was how to convince people?
- Ward decisions need to be taken now
- Questions: institutional issues – changes in human agency – scientists as activists
- Pielke: problem of advocacy among scientists – look at politicized intelligence – IPCC policy neutral but leaders are not
- Wards defends Pachauri – resignation will not solve problems – need changes to review process
- Wards: IPCC is to provide advice to policymakers
- Pielke also not interested in resignation – says IPCC needs deep reforms
- Muir-Wood speaks – also general public is audience of IPCC
- Vote again: many more on not side end of debate
(slightly edited for ease of reading)
It’s an early Christmas for AGW skeptics in the UK with the BBC all of a sudden abandoning it’s monolithic “the world will turn into cinder” orthodoxy.
Step forward Stephen Sackur, broadcasting a series of programmes about Greenland (with one article saying that “scientific studies of the Greenland Ice Sheet” may not necessarily “indicate that catastrophe is around the corner“; and a video with a very optimistic Greenlander (at around 1m30s) who should be made to tour all Greenpeace and WWF meetings).
And step forward…Roger Harrabin (!!!), finally fed up alongside millions of fellow citizens with the baseless climatic forecasts by the MetOffice, demonstrably wrong for three years in a row. So fed up, Mr Harrabin, that he’s given some BBC space to Piers Corbyn (!!!!!).