Monday, July 9th 2012, 3:24 AM EDT
There has been an exchange of words between Piers Corbyn and Anthony Watts at WUWT below.....First news of the Jet Stream location, just download the RT link and listen to what Piers has to say in this interview about the Russian Floods
=> Piers Corbyn Video RussiaToday 9July http://bit.ly/McAFcY on 'Water Avalanche' in East Black Sea Montains & World Extremes warned by WeatherAction - the shifted Jet stream and when it might change.
=> posted 7 July (6 July (WUWT) US time) Piers Comments on WUWT site http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/05/putting-piers-corbyn-to-the-test/#comment-1026243 Listed as posted July6 9:02pm re WeatherAction forecasts for extreme weather this July USA, Eu & B+I Citizens, thanks for those who have joined in! Please also go there if you can and note:
(i) There are a number of very foolish ignorant churlish remarks some from people I thought better of but nearly all from the usual dishonest standard Met / warmist freaks, which should be dealt with.
(ii) Nevertheless the main point of posting there is to get through to people who say nothing and need to be informed of the unique applicability of our forecasts to decision making and better warnings. Real WeatherAction users KNOW what they have to say.
=> 9 July I posted on WUWT this morning the following:
Firstly thanks very much indeed for various objective points from users of our forecasts, without you what I do would have no meaning. I can't list all points here but just mention Ulric. yes good point, our R5, R4 etc periods are indeed highest confidence forecast parts, are the core to what is going on and are used by people who live and die by forecasts. For those reasons they are ignored by those who have a less than objective agenda.
Anthony Watts, Whats Up?
1. PLEASE WHERE IS (NO APOLS FOR CAPS) our full WeatherAction 10 page forecast I sent you 6th July Pacific time - about 3 days ago as I write this - for posting to enable a potentially more objective assessment than some of your close associates and yourself appear to be aiming at.
Could it be that it is going rather well and so merits repression?
Maybe I missed something but it seems this is now a case of "Put up or shut up!"
(Piers I received no such communications or forecast documents in either comments here or email AFAIK, but if you have a URL where you have/can upload it I’ll gladly link to it in the body of the post. You can type full URLs in comments here and they will be automatically linked. I welcome people having a more detailed look and I’m happy to post it. But, I can’t post what I don’t have. – Anthony)
ANYONE WHO WANTS THE FULL 10 page USA JULY forecast pdf please email me firstname.lastname@example.org with USA PLEASE or words to that effect in title bar (I don't think we can temporarily change the USA price to zero in the on-line forecast shop without upsetting the system)
2. Anthony, Please explain why you hacked out and displayed alone the END OF JUNE forecast on our News + July forecasts summary page and describe it as "The USA forecast map...." when it is nothing to do with the July forecast which contains 8 maps. It was reportage. I find it particularly deceitful how you use that image - with arrows and red encirclement of no apparent purpose because these indicators are now cut-off from the picture verification of that end of June forecast period to which they led - simply to support your side-show complaints of gawdiness.
Readers may find our full forecast in un-mutilated form not as 'gawdy' as you deceitfully portray, nor as colorful as Accuweather (and I like their presentations) and actually EASY (no apols for caps) to follow. Btw we do use a touch larger print than many in the field (pun intended) because some farmers and forestry workers are hard of see-ing and these forecast maps get passed around under conditions where small print is not helpful. Our forecasts are not produced for the amusement of fault-finding churlish self-important short range forecasters and luke or other warmists but for useful LONG RANGE decision making. If real users want different forms and formats we will oblige but otherwise 'MYOB' (Mind Your Own Business) and stick to content.
(I simply repeated the email content that was forwarded to me, AND I linked to the full document on your server in the first part of the story, saying: “…which you can investigate in full yourself here.” Thus, I think you’ll have to retract your claim of “deceitful” when I make the full document available. If you have something else, feel free to link it here. My opinion as to the gaudiness stands, and is echoed in other comments here. I think you do yourself and your subscribers a disservice with the way you present it. I offered you help in a series of emails about two years ago, but you never responded – Anthony)
3. Anthony; There are plenty of users and objective studies which show our WeatherAction forecasts have significant long range skill - ahead of all others - and really it is not our forecasts but your objectivity which is now being put to the test.
(So name and link here a couple of “objective studies” – don’t just say they exist. Until you do it’s just talk – Anthony)
4. On users assessment I would like to report the tragic death of our longest standing (about 20 years) UK farmer subscriber Geoffrey Philpott. I attended his funeral along with 600 others at St Lawrence College Ramsgate on 2nd July and met many who use the forecasts for planning and improving their bottom line. His son Geoffrey Philpott jnr said "My father used the forecasts all the time, and so do I, we want to keep on having them". He was a great and visionary man in many many ways. Without his and other subscriptions we would not be here for the entertainment of churlish jerks.
(Piers, I’m sorry about your friend, but that context is irrelevant to the issue of the forecast skill, and certainly doesn’t help your case when you refer to the readership and myself as “churlish jerks”. – Anthony)
5. I do not see how what misrepresentation of what we say on earthquake TRIALS has any bearing on the supposed subject of the original post - assessing USA forecasts - other than to change the subject.
Nevertheless obviously this work is about major quakes above defined high levels (as rightly pointed out - and not about total numbers which are uncountable) and there has been plenty of objective assessment discussion on http://climaterealists.com/
Thanks, Piers Corbyn