• Home
  • Current News
  • Our Electric Universe, Junk Science and Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn

Our Electric Universe, Junk Science and Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn

Written by

2014 sees a rise in the number of scientists supportive of the idea of an Electric Universe, a concept that flies in the face of conventional cosmology. Piers Corbyn, world leader in long range weather forecasting, was one of an array of impressive speakers at the EU2014 Electric Universe Conference, New Mexico, helping generate the sparks.

{youtube}6R26PXRrgds{/youtube}

The characterful British astrophysicist Corbyn cuts an avuncular figure on stage at the EU Albuquerque venue. The plain-speaking Londoner kicked off a zestful presentation by quoting Niels Bohr who famously once said about his atomic theory, “Is it crazy enough?” Corbyn’s point was that the consensus never advances science and often what seems “crazy” at the time has a tendency to prove such mavericks correct.

Anti-establishmentarianism to one side, Corbyn delivered a most informative and entertaining presentation on our planet’s complicated meteorological system and how it reacts to solar and electromagnetic effects from space. The Weatheraction.com frontman Corbyn said that standard meteorology (SM) was consistently failing in outlook, theory, and practice.

“Climate change nonsense ‘theory’ and dangerous policy is part of a bigger problem,” laments Corbyn, who has a legion of loyal customers subscribing to his long range weather forecasting service. He is among a growing number of highly-credentialed independent scientists who say climate science and standard meteorology is in crisis. For too long computer modelling reliant on unrested, untestable hypotheses held the ascendant. A world-leading independent long-range weather forecaster, Corbyn is dismissive of the junk climate computer models that failed to predict the current trend towards apparent global cooling.

And as with other EU speakers, Corbyn’s message was that an empirical approach (evidential) was preferable, as opposed to the ideological approach promoted by corrupt self-interest groups. Even the non-scientists among us are now asking –  isn’t the evidence-based approach best?

The thrust of Corbyn’s argument is that mainstream science academies have become servants of political paymasters. As such, they are no longer reliable agents for the advancement of science. But government science will always serve government policy, not the other way round. That is the nature of the beast as we move inexorably deeper into a post-normal era that desperately needs new science bodies set apart and not beholden to national governments.

Are these the rantings of a denier kook? Well, here is a scientist whose credentials speak for themselves. Piers Corbyn began recording weather and climate patterns at the age of nine, constructing his own observation equipment. He obtained a first-class honors degree in physics at Imperial College London. In 1969, he became the first president of the Imperial College Students’ Union to be directly elected by the student body. He later studied astrophysics in 1979 at Queen Mary College, London, and then began examining the relationship between Earth’s weather and climate and solar activity. Following many years of weather prediction as an occupation, Piers formed WeatherAction in 1995, where he sells web-accessible long-range monthly forecasts for Britain and Ireland, Europe, and the USA plus special forecasts of ‘Red Weather periods’ and related increases in thunder/tornado and earthquake risk. His successful forecasting keeps winning new converts. Among them London Mayor, Boris Johnson, after Weatheraction.com left their forecasting competitors standing during the London 2012 Olympics and other notable occasions.

“You can’t put sensible stuff into a model of madness,” quips the Londoner. But for all his successes Corbyn is shunned by the agenda-driven politically-correct class. Bemoaning the failures of the scientifically-illiterate mainstream media to arbitrate on such matters Corbyn quipped, “’Truth is not very evident on the BBC.”

Of great concern to Corbyn and others are those signals in real meteorology data that remain unexplained by SM, such as the real role of the jet stream, the stratosphere, electro-jets, magnetosphere, solar wind, solar corona, and the Moon. He also highlighted the total inability of standard meteorology to explain: sudden stratospheric warmings and its consequences, tropical storm intensifications, angular momentum concentration in tornadoes. His wide-ranging presentation showed there was a compelling need for something else such as electromagnetic plasma explanations; the theoretical basis of non-standard long range weather forecasting on a real planet; a summary on his WeatherAction forecasting skill and examples; and the future of forecasting and meteorology, climate ‘science’ and science in general.

Find out more at: www.weatheraction.com 

Subscribe to Thunderbolts Update newsletter:http://eepurl.com/ETy41
Thunderbolts Project Home: http://www.thunderbolts.info
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/thunderboltsp…
Picture of the Day: http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/daily…
Electric Universe (Wal Thornhill): http://www.holoscience.com/wp/

Essential Guide to the Electric Universe:

http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/eg-contents/

 

Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments (7)

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    John O’Sullivan:
    “He (Piers Corbyn) is among a growing number of highly-credentialed independent scientists who say climate science and standard meteorology is in crisis.”

    “Of great concern to Corbyn and others are those signals in real meteorology data that remain unexplained by SM, such as the real role of the jet stream, the stratosphere . . .”

    “He also highlighted the total inability of standard meteorology to explain: sudden stratospheric warmings and its consequences, tropical storm intensifications, angular momentum concentration in tornadoes. His wide-ranging presentation showed there was a compelling need for something else such as electromagnetic plasma explanations; . . .”

    Jim McGinn (Solving Tornadoes):
    Well, it’s good to see that there is at least one professional meteorologists that doesn’t have his head completely up his ass with regard to the realization that “Meteorology is in crisis,” and the “need for something else such as electromagnetic plasma explanations,” both of which I address explicitly on my website: http://www.solvingtornadoes.com. However, the fact that he has not contacted me and brings me to wonder if he is not just talking out of that same orifice, as is the case with so many other of the pretenders in the field of meteorology–and sidekicks like John O’Sullivan. (BTW, the electro-magnetic plasma involves H2O, hydrogen bonding, and spin of microdroplets in the context of moist/dry wind shear.)

    Message too long. Continued in next post.

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    [b]Continued from previous post.[/b]

    But I do have to give you all some credit for bringing to my attention, “sudden stratospheric warmings and its consequences, tropical storm intensifications, angular momentum concentration in tornadoes.” I will look into this further (links?). (This is the first time I came to PSI and learned something about my core subject that I didn’t already know.)

    John O’Sullivan (continued):
    “Corbyn’s message was that an empirical approach (evidential) was preferable, as opposed to the ideological approach promoted by corrupt self-interest groups. Even the non-scientists among us are now asking – isn’t the evidence-based approach best?”

    “The thrust of Corbyn’s argument is that mainstream science academies have become servants of political paymasters. As such, they are no longer reliable agents for the advancement of science.”

    ” . . . for all his successes Corbyn is shunned by the agenda-driven politically-correct class. Bemoaning the failures of the scientifically-illiterate mainstream media to arbitrate on such matters Corbyn quipped, “’Truth is not very evident on the BBC.”

    Jim McGinn (Solving Tornadoes):
    Well, I think Piers Corbyn and John O’Sullivan have to ask themselves whether or not they are part of the solution or part of the problem with respect to claiming to have been shunned by the media. They certainly can’t claim to have been more shunned than I have been shunned on these same topics. Moreover, Corbyn hasn’t done much more than suggest some topics of conversation. It’s good that Corbyn and O’Sullivan are starting to ask the right questions, but where is the investigation? Where is the discussion? Where are the specific issues? Where is there an attempt to make/find something testable/empirical? It’s good that they are generalizing on the right topics but it is not good that they are failing to do anything beyond generalizing.

    If any of the readers of PSI are interested in getting beyond the endless feedback loop of generalization and vague arguments I suggest going to my website that address these issues (as so eloquently described in this articles) in depths and in a manner that strives for testability: http://www.solvingtornadoes.com

    Here is a good post to get a sense of the history of pseudoscience in meteorology:
    http://wp.me/p4JijN-3j

  • Avatar

    solvingtornadoes

    |

    John O’Sullivan:
    “He (Piers Corbyn) is among a growing number of highly-credentialed independent scientists who say climate science and standard meteorology is in crisis.”

    “Of great concern to Corbyn and others are those signals in real meteorology data that remain unexplained by SM, such as the real role of the jet stream, the stratosphere . . .”

    “He also highlighted the total inability of standard meteorology to explain: sudden stratospheric warmings and its consequences, tropical storm intensifications, angular momentum concentration in tornadoes. His wide-ranging presentation showed there was a compelling need for something else such as electromagnetic plasma explanations; . . .”

    Jim McGinn (Solving Tornadoes):
    Well, it’s good to see that there is at least one professional meteorologists that doesn’t have his head completely up his ass with regard to the realization that “Meteorology is in crisis,” and the “need for something else such as electromagnetic plasma explanations,” both of which I address explicitly on my website: http://www.solvingtornadoes.com. However, the fact that he has not contacted me and brings me to wonder if he is not just talking out of that same orifice, as is the case with so many other of the pretenders in the field of meteorology–and sidekicks like John O’Sullivan. (BTW, the electro-magnetic plasma involves H2O, hydrogen bonding, and spin of microdroplets in the context of moist/dry wind shear.)

    Message too long. Continued in next post.

  • Avatar

    Charles Higley

    |

    Big Bang Theory (BBT) is entirely based on the redshift detected by Hubble. However, it totally ignores that light can also be redshifted as it climbs out of the gravity well of a star or galaxy. BBT also failed miserably regarding the background microwave radiation, off by three orders of magnitude; they glued onto the BBT a fix for that. When the detectable mass of the universe did not fit the D, He, and Li present out there according to BBT, they invented Dark Matter to explain away the huge discrepancy; leaving over 95% of the universe as fudge factor. And, if there is Dark Matter, it must be subject to Dark Force, which gives it Dark Energy. They had to dream up an entire DARK PHYSICS to make BBT appear to work. At what point is this not fantasy added to fantasy?

    Then, if there was a BBT, what was it in, a quantum foam? And there would be a multiverse of universes in the quantum foam, each with different physical constants and evolutions. Wow, Elvis just left the building, for sure!

    On the other hand, the Electric, steady state Universe explains much more, is hugely more simple, and is based on known laws of physics.

    Occam’s Razor says that they have to disprove the Electric Universe before they can keep or accept BBT, which is unbelievably fudge-factored to death, at 10 to the 106th power.

    Just because BBT has lots of supporters and has invested billions of dollars in searching for Dark Matter, it does not at all show that the Electric Universe is not better or wrong. BBT is only dominant because it simply pretends that an alternate model even exists, pretty much just like the “climate scientists” ignoring the skeptics, as they know they, the “warmists” cannot defend their junk science.

    Continental Drift got the same reception and was correct. Try explaining why the interior of the Sun is cooler than the surface when it is supposed to be a fusion star. Try explaining the abiotic generation of natural gas by the Earth’s core without neutron repulsion reactions. And, if the Earth’s core is a supernova remnant, then the Sun must be one, also.

    The glacial/interglacial pattern of our last two million years is indistinguishable from an R/C circuit, charging up for 85,000 years and then discharging during interglacials for 12,000 years.

    Only an electric field can accelerate charged particles from 6000 C at the solar surface to 1 million C a million miles out from the Sun. Gravity should be slowing these particles and cannot accelerate them.

    Yep, Occam’s Razor guys. Just like saturated fats are NOT bad for us; with our good friend Anzel Keyes forcing a fraudulent paper on the medical world and the people, we have suffered a heart disease epidemic rather than decrease under this false science and are now saddled with a billion dollar industry to fight cholesterol, for absolutely no reason.

  • Avatar

    Pat Obar

    |

    [quote name=”FauxScienceSlayer”]Other presenters at the Thunderbolt Conference included Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille, Professor of Radiology and Physical Chemistry who presented his peer reviewed and published research on the actual absorption/emission of radiation energy by gases, of particular interest is CO2. Human blood contains 5%, or 130 TIMES the atmospheric level of CO2 and is mandatory to avoid hypercapnia, hypocapnia and to balance pH levels. In order to improve resolution in MRI, it was necessary to know the exact parameters of this gas, which disclosed errors in all of the “known” radiation laws. In his video at EU-2014, “On the Validity of Kirchoff”, Dr Robitaille not only questions this law, but the corollary laws of Planck, Stefan and Boltzman.[/quote]

    Did you even look and listen to your claimed video? Any 30 minutes by the Smothers Brothers would have much better science, and be interesting enough to be bearable. Your Robitaille does nicely trash the current Wikipedia condensation of at least 9 Kirchhoff laws of electromagnetic radiation, some of wich deal with thermal electromagnetic radiation. He obviously never did read any of the writings of Kirchhoff himself.
    All we have is an Wiki amalgamation of all sorts by your nuevo pseudo physicists, now completly ununderstandable and unreadable. All the electromagnetic radiation “Laws” of Kirchhoff are true physical laws. They are constructed only of observation and measurement. The do not attempt to explain anything. They have never been falsified. The equations of James Maxwell and John Poynting do all the explanation necessary to certify Kirchhoff”s Laws.
    Your Robitaille haphazardly interchanges all different and precise terms of thermal electromagnetic radiation in order to depreciate the effort of others. Please invite him to respond!! It took 60 years to get the language scientifically correct. Your nuevo pseudo physicists, now come in and crap on everything. 🙂

    • Avatar

      Stephen J. Crothers

      |

      It’s actually obvious that you did not pay any attention to Professor Robitaille’s video presentation. You have not advanced a single scientific argument. There is in fact only one Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation, contrary to your ramblings, and it is invalid. Arbitrary cavities do not all contain black radiation. Maxwell’s equations and the Poynting vector have no bearing on Kirchhoff’s Law. It seems that you don’t even know the difference between Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Radiation and his laws relating to electric circuits.

  • Avatar

    FauxScienceSlayer

    |

    Other presenters at the Thunderbolt Conference included Dr Pierre-Marie Robitaille, Professor of Radiology and Physical Chemistry who presented his peer reviewed and published research on the actual absorption/emission of radiation energy by gases, of particular interest is CO2. Human blood contains 5%, or 130 TIMES the atmospheric level of CO2 and is mandatory to avoid hypercapnia, hypocapnia and to balance pH levels. In order to improve resolution in MRI, it was necessary to know the exact parameters of this gas, which disclosed errors in all of the “known” radiation laws. In his video at EU-2014, “On the Validity of Kirchoff”, Dr Robitaille not only questions this law, but the corollary laws of Planck, Stefan and Boltzman.

    In his presentation, Steven Crothers question the measurements of Cosmic Background Radiation. It appears that there is directed science on the origins of the Universe. In a Dec 14, 1936 interview, “Shift on Shift”, the father of big bang said it was a hoax, see “Mysterious ‘Dr X’ says, Universe is NOT Expanding” at the FauxScienceSlayer website. It is proper science to be SKEPTICAL of proper science.

Comments are closed