Allow me to present to you dear reader my scientific model featuring the very latest mathematical techniques combined with NASA-quality computer code and input from Nobel prize-winning scientists.
(Actually, I made that last bit up, but then so did Michael “hockey stick” Mann, so I am in good company. After all this eminent climate “scientist” has just been elected to the US National Academy of Sciences).
A little background. Every Friday for the last eight weeks the Morrisons along with five other couples have held a Zoom quiz. Each round is set by a different couple, but of course, the question has been asked if the results should be “adjusted” to allow for easy or difficult questions from different participants.
Since I once did three half days in the lower sixth at a local poly studying computer code, I immediately volunteered to try my hand. Admittedly it was some time ago, 1970 to be precise, and I can’t remember what code was studied – C or DUS or XYZ – whatever, how difficult can it be?
My initial work made good progress and I was able to add “refinements” based on data from previous competitions. In the meantime I named my model Confirmed Results Accordingly Presented or CRAP for short. When the results were announced I informed the group that they would, of course, be “settled” and not open to debate. I noted that this was standard practice in a great deal of state-funded science these days.
I was particularly proud of my pioneering work on the “U” number. This is based on Units of alcohol consumed both during the latest quiz and over the last eight weeks. Unfortunately, my first effort at producing an infallible result was not a great success. Due to extrapolation and exponential errors, my model showed the winner scored minus 7 to the power of 1,997.
However after further guesswork, pardon, concerted effort, I was able to present my findings to the group. The results showed that the Morrisons had won every week by a number so large it represented a new mathematical discovery.
I named this new number a Lert.
Fanciful but it is hardly much different to what often seems to be occurring in both epidemiology and in particular climate change studies. Accurate figures into a spreadsheet produce an accurate result, but as computers programmers note – garbage in, garbage out. If your source material is composed of a large number of assumptions, proxies, extrapolations and smoothing techniques, the result can hardly be described as scientific “evidence”. If, as seems the case with most climate science these days, you are using it to promote a political cause to de-industrialise the planet, then it is little more than Garbage in, Gospel out.
When the history of the Covid-19 lockdown comes to be written, Professor Ferguson’s bizarre attempt to predict death tolls will feature high in the list of triggers that persuaded many governments around the world to place their populations under house arrest and trash their economies. But who really knew what Ferguson was looking at? One day he was predicting 500,000 deaths, the next 20,000. In the past, his record on predicted the course of a disease has been abysmal including his prediction that 150,000 people would die from mad cow disease. To date it is thought there have been about 200 fatalities from this condition.
It is hardly surprising to discover that the code behind Ferguson’s model has been widely derided as extremely poor and unlikely to be acceptable in a commercial environment. Yet barely a day goes by without Government ministers insisting that their horrendous mass house arrest policy is driven by the science with Boris Johnson still quoting Ferguson’s ‘half a million will die’ nonsense.
Of course, it is not science. As Professor John Ashton, a former regional director of health in England, noted .. “this research is being given a kind of religious status, like tablets of stone, from the mountains”.
In climate change, of course, the models are the science. Nobody really knows what effect a little more or a little less C02 has in the atmosphere. The suggestion that human-caused C02 will lead to giant uncontrolled rises in temperature is an unproven scientific hypothesis. Since we only produce about 3% of all C02 that naturally enters the atmosphere every year, it is unlikely that we can do much about trying to change the climate.
It defeated King Canute; it is likely to defeat us.
And yet an entire industry has grown up around the preposterous suggestion that we can measure the unmeasurable chaos that is the Earth’s atmosphere and then adjust the climate to our liking. If this measurement is possible one would expect to see some accurate results by now, but over the last 30 years, 100 or so climate models have been invariably wrong.
They have consistently produced higher unjustified forecasts and they continue to promote rises in the future up to 6C. And this is now counted as evidence. This is the science that St Greta and Sir David and Boris Johnson and the BBC/Guardian say we must listen to. It is not science, it is pure unadulterated, dangerous, untested, unprovable, unscientific garbage.
Hardly my words either. An earlier climate modeller from Oxford Dr David Frame said the models were “convenient fictions that provides something very useful”. Professor Antonino Zichichi, who discovered nuclear anti-matter, said they were “incoherent and invalid”. Along with 70 Italian scientists, Professor Zichichi noted that it was “unscientifically unrealistic to attribute to humans the responsibility for warming observed from the past century to today”.
It is, of course, fellows like the distinguished emeritus Italian professor Zichichi that the cream of British green lunacy led by clowns like George Monbiot, geography professor Mark Maslim and Caroline Lucas say they will not debate since for them to do so “lends credibility”.
Please follow @CMorrisonEsq on Twitter
If you appreciated this article and would like to support us, would you consider a one off small donation?
(any currency can be selected)