Computer modelled scaremongering ain’t going to cut it anymore
By Paul Homewood
The entire Climate Cult is built upon doomsday computer model projections which the naïve and gullible have been tricked into believing are infallible. To cult members, these computer models forecasts are not only irrefutable, but tenets of their faith carved in stone.
However, the hopelessly inaccurate computer modelling of the Wuhan Flu, where the world’s supposedly leading computer modeller Neil Ferguson has been exposed as a crackpot, an international laughing stock and forced to resign, has provided the public with a valuable lesson of the golden rule of modelling; garbage in, garbage out – and that computer modelling is often more about the politics than it is about the science, no more accurate than a clairvoyant reading the entrails of a freshly sacrificed chicken.
The alarmist climate change computer models, such as those Tim Flannery used to prophecies that Warragamba Dam would never again fill, or the models that foretold of 50 million climate refugees by 2010, or the models that predicted the entire Maldives would be underwater by now, generally forecast events a decade or longer into the future, so their absurdity takes time to become apparent. In comparison, the computers models for the Wuhan Flu are on fast forward.
Take the ABC coronavirus ‘expert’ scaremonger Dr Norman Swan, who on March 21 (when Australia had just over 1,000 coronavirus cases) used computer models to predict that the number of cases in Australia would be “7,000 – 8,000 by next weekend’’. So sure was the ABC’s ‘expert’ of the computer models he added “Primary school maths. No magic fairy will bring that down”, warning that we were just “14-21 days behind Italy” which on that date had recorded 4,825 deaths.
However, by “next weekend”, 28/29 March, Australia only had 3,378 cases on the Saturday and 3,809 cases on the Sunday — not the numbers Swan foretold. So in just over a week, the ABC expert’s computer models were more than 100 per cent out. Faulty predictions of such scale would make even Tim Flannery blush….
Internationally, we have witnessed similar alarmist failures… Ultimately, no one will ever be able to tally the total unnecessary cost, the hardship, the suffering, the increased poverty, the economic and social damage, and the all extra (non-Wuhan Flu) deaths and illnesses that have resulted from treating doomsday computer models as gospel during this current crisis….
Let’s hope that having been burnt so badly this time, the world will learn a valuable lesson and treat the failed and failing political Climate Alarmist’s computer models with the scepticism they deserve – and if so, we can drive yet another nail into the climate alarmists’ coffin.
Full article here.
Craig Kelly is Liberal MP for Hughes (Australia!!)
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Many comments usually agree with the debunking of the climate change idiocy and yet we still go on losing the war….
Neil Ferguson is not a crackpot, merely a Marxist (or is that the same thing?) whose main agenda was not to save lives, but bring down the government. Sadly his lies have left us all in the state that we currently are in.
Its computer models that need attacking , not climate change per se. Without the models CC would go away. Computer models are in the process of destroying human values and life. The people who are the customers of output have no idea how to use it or value it. They can be hoodwinked so easily. Its a force for evil as most good things don’t need over complicated models.
Computer models with their rubbish data in-rubbish model out are the only way the alarmists can create and perpetuate alarm. Started by the IPCC’s Ben Santer in 1995 who designed one to show a ‘human fingerprint’ of CO2 causing global warming. If he could be so dishonest at the IPCC and not just get away with it but get media publicity, UN money, voluntary sector support and government legislation to back the lie, who will ever be able to stop the modellers?
Computer models like opinion polls always get exactly the result the modeller or pollster wants.
Odd that.
Some weeks ago I made the point that before a computer model can be of use the situation being modelled must be fully understood and every possible interacting agent included.
The difficulty for people like Fergusson is that by the time that situation arrives – if it ever can – the model is no longer needed.
“MUST WATCH Debunking the Narrative With Prof Dolores Cahill”
Ferguson wasn’t forced to resign on account of crap modelling/forecasts, rather his barefaced hypocrisy in meeting up with his fuckbuddy during a time when the rest of the population was mandated in lockdown
A ‘fuckbuddy’ who just happens to be an Extinction Rebellion activist!
Climate models are no different from pandemic models. They are each constantly adjusted to achieve the previously expected result. One adjusts temperatures, the other adjusts deaths. The direction depends on the desired outcome?
I’ve just realised something. Some (cough) years ago, I had to write a load of computer programs for my A Level in computer science. Two of them were allowed to be free-form, so I wrote (in Fortran) an analysis of the last 10 years of the (then) League (92 teams), and then, by inputting (on paper tape!!!) the following year’s fixture list, I was able to program the old (new then) ICL 1902 to predict the Pools draws for each week. It took 45 minutes to run and I won all of 30 bob in the whole season!!
I’m convinced that my failure to win a fortune qualifies my A-Level program as a MODEL!!! I win!! (They’re coming to take me away, ha-ha he-he, to the funny farm….It has a Ferguson tractor!!) 🙂
I think in today’s age of computer modelling it’s time for a relaunch, Harry.
If we can combine our talents (I have none, you clearly have many), we could create a computer program to predict the lottery numbers.
Of course, it won’t work but if we call the new programme (or just reuse your pools code, it doesn’t matter) “Climate Change and the Probability of Winning the Lottery: It’s Worse Than We Thought”, we could apply for a multi-million grant, and then just go to the pub for a few years.
You in?
Pubs are closed – game over 😭
LMAO@oldbrew
I was talking account it may take a couple of months to get the cheque 😉
COVID-19 has shown us what all those models are worth. I have worked for a trading company for many years and we used lots of models and data crunching in order to help our decisionmaking process. But most of us were aware that all the gimmicks won’t replace sound understanding of the market and also that you could never trust those models. Especially when situations were really complex with high volumes of fiddley variables. Weather is one of the most chaotic systems we know. The number of variables in infinitely high. Any model must therefore fail – and they all have so far. Lets ditch this crystal ball gazing and work on what we really know, not what some activist cooks up in his laptop.
Hey Bruce, crack open a tinny to celebrate mate.
The millennial’s can cry over that Prosecco mineral water crap they drink.
A bottle between them’ll see them all pissed anyway.
I’ll chuck a steak on the Barbie for them; they’ll insist on a courgette, but it just slimes a decent grill so I won’t bother. Let them have it raw as I’m cooking with Gas anyway and they hate fossil fuel.
Great to see you bring the wonderful Craig Kelly to people’s attention.
António Guterres Climate Change Lies COP25: essential viewing.
Only 12 minutes but it packs in so much. Towards the end, the photos of Bondi Beach sea level utterly unchanged since the 1880s are worth it alone.
Climate models have to factor in far too many variables, both known and unknown, to have any chance at all of being correct, never mind correct for the right reasons.
In short they’re posh, expensive guesses. Worst-case scenarios are hugely unlikely yet are the ‘outcomes’ which get all the headlines, hence absurd claims of 20 feet sea level rise if Greenland melts’ and all the rest of it.
For a model to be of value it requires validation. That is what happens with engineering models. Testing is carried out to prove that the model output is correct. The global circulation models are not validated and everything to date has shown them to be inaccurate. It is odd that they always claim that the models output are ‘projections’ and not ‘predictions’ but then they use them as predictions.
Computer models are primarily research tools, they allow investigation of what-ifs, and give an understanding of what is important. They are most definitely not predictions of the future, but lets not leap to the conclusion that every modeller is trying to do so, for nefarious purposes.
Much is made of the supposedly ridiculous 500,000 UK deaths prediction, but that is clearly a reasonable ball-park estimate, given the current death count, and the fact that most of the population has not yet had it.
Actually,it is very clear that many more people have ‘had it’ than the estimates allow for. There is much more immunity out there than you think.
Hopefully, this new test for ant-bodies (announced today) will satisfy everyone on that point.
They aren’t models. We don’t know enough to model.
Alice Gast should be fired too. She is responsible for this embarrassment to Imperial College.
AGast followed O’Nions. Truly weird!