I have established that Weatheraction produce statistically viable weather forecasts. However, I have never stated that Piers Corbyn must therefore be correct in his views on Co2-driven global warming. Corbyn's reasons for denying the Co2-driven theory of global warming have been widely expressed by others and dismissed many times by climate scientists. To simply state that Co2, methane and other greenhouse gases have no effect on the climate because they are trace gases is to ignore their very powerful heat trapping capacity. As a physicist from a top university one would expect Piers Corbyn to understand all this and it is puzzling that he takes such a radical line that can so easily be argued against.
Many Weatheraction followers have probably become so precisely because they wish to deny global warming and see Corbyn as an expert - a prophet if you like - that they can rally round. Given how easily Corbyn's criticisims of man-made Co2 can be brushed aside might it not just be a cynical marketing ploy to draw in a loyal crowd of subscribers? The statistically-viable nature of his forecasts ought to be enough to generate enthusiasm for them - but given that they can also be very wrong perhaps he does not yet feel able to sell them entirely on their own merits.
The only way that Corbyn's Co2 denialism could make sense is if the forces of the sun are many times greater than commonly understood by science and that this simply makes any greenhouse gas warming such a trivial contribution as to be irrelevant. If Piers Corbyn was to adopt that line, in effect not actually denying the Co2 theory but stating that bigger forces were at work that were not yet understood by mainstream science, then he would potentially get a positive reception among the mainstream whilst continuing to be an effective Co2 denialist.
What are the chances that Weatheraction is right? I am torn by having to square the demonstrable success of Corbyn's forecasts with his incongruous Co2 denial. Does Corbyn believe Co2 has NO impact on the climate, or does he believe that it does have an effect but that its impact is so small that it can be dismissed? If it is the latter then there is scope to rationalise his position within that of the mainstream view. If the SLAT theory means the climate-inducing power of the sun is, say, 10 times what is currently understood it would mean that greenhouses gases are only a tenth as influential and can be considered irrelevant. To demonstrate this it would simply be necessary to work out how much energy is required to create areas of high and low pressure and to pull the jet stream around. For a trained physicist (not me) this is probably a couple of hours work. Then, by showing a record of forecast versus actual weather to show that the forecasts are statistically significant, demonstrate that the sun really is the key driver of the climate in ways not currently appreciated.
As an advocate of Weatheraction - due to my analysis of it - I wish to see it become an integrated part of mainstream weather forecasting. If it also turns out that Corbyn is right about Co2 then so much the better. If Weatheraction were to argue their case without so vehemently dismissing a theory that has near universal acceptance then the SLAT theory would be in a position to gain widespread recognition.