Friday Funny – that crushing #ClimateChange moment, courtesy of #coronavirus

Our resident cartoonist Josh writes:

That crushing moment… As some have noted if the planet has healed itself in 3 weeks then there is no climate crisis and no action needed.

I think Greens are beginning to realize this and feeling slightly alarmed.

#covidiots #ClimateAction #ClimateCrisis #WuFlu

Like his work? Send him a quid for when the pubs reopen.


Then there’s this:

113 thoughts on “Friday Funny – that crushing #ClimateChange moment, courtesy of #coronavirus

  1. The worst flu season since the 1970s was in 2017-18, when 61,000 deaths were attributed to seasonal flu, and over 80,000 for the year. That’s a bit more than Dr. Fauci’s latest downgrade, based upon the Gates Foundation’s IHME and other models’ ever-lowering best guesses.

          • Try this for “reading comprehension”, to wit:

            Corona virus pandemic! …… WHAT pandemic?

            Here are the annual alcohol and drug related pandemic “death” results that no one gets excited about, to wit:

            There were fewer than 3,000 overdose deaths in 1970,

            There were fewer than 5,000 recorded in 1988,

            ……. (and then the pandemic emerged) …….

            More than 64,000 Americans died from drug overdoses in 2017.

            In 2018, there were 67,367 drug overdose deaths in the United States,

            In the past 3 decades, drug overdoses have killed approximately 870,000 people.

            ***********

            An estimated 88,000 people die from alcohol-related causes annually,

          • Scissor

            It would appear the association of the 61,000 deaths is with 2017/2018, not the 1970’s.

            Happy to concede the point if I’ve misread though.

          • Jeff,
            And exposure to Covid19 is not an automatic death sentence, although you wouldn’t know that if you watched the nightly news.

  2. Forty years as a System Developer and Manager. I trust NO “models.” If they worked, financial models would have put an end to the stock market; every bank would know what tomorrow’s stock value would be. The Climate Crisis is another example of always wrong, always “correctable”, ever dependable models.

    • Models are like experts. If an expert or a model makes predictions about anything in which humans are involved, they will be wrong most of the time. Their sophisticated predictions are accurate no more than would be generated by a blind dart-throwing chimp.

      On the other hand, in engineering where the questions can be simple and the variables can be nailed down, the predictions can be very reliable. In fact, without knowing it, you bet your life on those predictions multiple times per day.

      The problem is that people conflate the two kinds of models and experts. The result is that some benighted folks think a model of the stock market has any predictive value at all. Climate models are one worse because the desired outcome is where they start.

      • “commieBob April 10, 2020 at 1:31 pm

        On the other hand, in engineering where the questions can be simple and the variables can be nailed down, the predictions can be very reliable. In fact, without knowing it, you bet your life on those predictions multiple times per day.”

        Those model based predictions are vigorously tested before anyone bets their life on them. What I have seen in the Australian context of COVID19 is that the models used incomplete and bad data there output has been proven to be useless.

        • Modellers are able to continue to milk governments for funding because they are willing to make projections with bad data or inadequate data. Collecting data is expensive and modelling by comparison is cheap. Cheap but worth nothing

        • We also include a healthy safety factor, but that needs to clear the model anyways, before we even think of printing the prototype.

        • But if climate scientists can triumphantly model the earth’s atmosphere surely we can trust a completely different set of scientists to model the responses of 20 million human beings to a public health crisis they’ve never encountered before.

          In the paragraph above, I used sarcasm to suggest the opposite of what a literal interpretation of my words would lead a reader to understand thereby.

      • commieBob

        It seems to me engineers understand error margins, climate scientists don’t.

        Engineers treat them with respect and include them with caution. Climate scientist’s treat them as cumulative, then modellers include their own, until the entire mess becomes one big error margin.

        • The big difference between engineers and scientists is that engineers are severely punished for being wrong.

          Scientists, on the other hand, are not punished when their research findings are found to be false. In fact, by publishing false, but seemingly interesting/novel findings, they may be handsomely rewarded and usually nobody ever tries to replicate their results anyway.

          • The scientists do the initial work and develop an idea into an hypothesis to be tested. Once the hypothesis has been tested enough to show decent repeatability and span the engineers take over.

            They take the scientific data, beat the hell out of it, check all the limits 6 ways from Sunday, and make pragmatic tools built around it.

            Two entirely different tasks. Without engineers to design and make the equipment scientists couldn’t do much beyond thought experiments. Without scientists testing a theory engineers would have to work by trial and error to find workable methods of building what was needed.

            Look at Lenonardo da’Vinci’s famous drawings. Yes, he invented the tank. It was pretty useless as a tank, much worse than the first British tank that was barely workable.

            Leonardo was right that it was possible to fly, but he had no basis for designing a usable aircraft, or even a simple glider.

      • Prior to the Black Death people had absolute faith in the Christian Church. Faith in priests has been replaced by faith in medical doctors and experts. The Reformation was a response to the Black Death and people wanted to read The Bible and decide themselves. We could be in a similar situation where people use their common sense born of experience to request that they examine the data, methods and the experts before they accept their word.

        As H MacMillan , the British PM said in the 1950s” We have not given up the Divine Rule of Kings to accept the Divine Right of Experts “.

        • No.

          I will admit that the Plague did manage to exacerbate matters in a roundabout manner.
          The most principled of clergy had a nasty habit of dying from tending the sick, leaving the Latin Church to the less savory sort.

          That said, the Plague was 150 years before the Reformation, and even the Hussite Wars were over 50 years after the fact.

          Rather, the success of the Reformation is owed to key technological advances (the printing press was absolutely critical), increased sophistication in military training, equipment, and tactics, growing commerce, and the economic advantages of seizing Church property and breaking the beer monopoly (it did start in Germany).

          • The Star of the Reformation was Wycliffe who criticised much of the clergy from 1380s. The Black Death resulted in many people reassessing society which included the Church. The Black Death helped the Peasants Revolt( 1381) which included attacks on the Church whom were land owners. The result was that by the time of Luther in Germany and Henry VIII, many in N Europe were appalled by the luxury, cost and corruption of the Church. In many ways much of the universities play a similar role in our life today; taking much, giving little and criticising us for our sins. The Environment is our new secular religion. In appearance and character many acdemics dispaly the same portliness and capacity for conceited pretension drivel as any wealthy prelate from the late 14th century.

            The reason why History is so badly taught is that events often follow a process, like streams merging to form a larger river. An event can change the direction of travel and start a process which may take decades or centuries to unfurl. When Eisenhower warned of the threat of the military- industrial complex he also included technology and universities.

            Much academic research requires an ability to know a great deal about very little and as consequence acdemics lack an ability perceive an understanding of great areas of land and changes over millionsd of years. Consequently, models are developed which can be understood but do not replicate the complexity of the Earth over millions of years. Engineers faced by complex problems in adverse conditions know that a solution has to be simple and rugged to work.

    • I think tomorrows stock prices follow a special mathematical distribution whereby if there is a deterministic method of calculating tomorrows stock price and making money, someone will have already done it.

      • “I think tomorrows stock prices follow a special mathematical distribution whereby if there is a deterministic method of calculating tomorrows stock price and making money, someone will have already done it.”.

        A corollary of that is that they change today’s prices by trading, thus invalidating the calculations of tomorrow’s prices.

      • No. If you know all the variables then the model will work. That’s how we can engineer buildings and know that the reinforced concrete won’t fail and the roof will not collapse.

        But with things like climate and the stock market and the spread of a disease, we cannot possibly know all the variables. Therefore, the models cannot possibly come up with the correct answer.

        • “But with things like climate and the stock market and the spread of a disease, we cannot possibly know all the variables.”

          They’re not even trying. They have the one variable to rule them all.

        • Monna Manhas, it’s a chaotic system …

          Even if you could find and measure all the variables, their dependencies and the workings of their feedback systems, and all other parameters that they in turn affect, the measurements would have to be extremely accurate to an infinite degree; for if they were less than this then chaos would ensure that ‘projections’ (AKA prediction) would drift away from reality in an unpredictable ways.
          It is the nature of the beast ‘chaos’!

    • JimInIndy – April 10, 2020 at 12:18 pm

      If they worked, financial models would have put an end to the stock market;

      And worse yet, ….. t’would have put an end to 80% of Casino betting, ….. college/pro sports betting ….. and horse race betting.

    • Ah yes, my favorite disclaimer on every mutual fund or stock:

      Past performance is not indicative of future results.

  3. Forty years as a System Developer and Manager. I trust NO “models.” If they worked, financial models would have put an end to the stock market; every bank would know what tomorrow’s stock value would be. The Climate Crisis is another example of always wrong, always “correctable”, ever dependable models.

    • Models are a very widespread failure of the computer age, recently ran across this, from a fairly recent paper’s abstract—“Our appreciation for how biology may contravene physical modeling is clearer where the larger western Chesapeake Bay tributaries are concerned.” It had to do with locations of resistant oysters to disease in higher salinities, much lower in the bay than predicted. Most hypotheses are wrong.

    • Don’t worry – an adjustment is probably being prepared as you write in case it is needed. The climate crises elite make the Pope look a beginner in the in fallibility game and have far more invested in the game they are playing.

      • It’s fun to tweak the green blob, but realistically with the long-term trend of 2ppm increase per year, a partial shutdown of just a few weeks, a CO2 residence time measured in years, and fairly high day-to-day fluctuation, how could we expect to see much change? Probably there has been at most a 50% reduction in CO2 emissions (I suspect it’s far less).

        If the 2ppm/yr rate is driven exclusively by emissions, a month of 50% reduction might be expected to result in a 0.08ppm “deceleration” or downward deviation from the trend line. Cherry-pick your days and you can show swings up or down that are more than an order of magnitude bigger than that.

        • Yes indeed! Catholics should recall that notwithstanding any theories that he’s an antipope or an anti-christ, he has never said anything invoking infallibility (“ex cathedra”). I suppose he’s actually the pope. There have been other bad popes in the history of the Church. We’ve been overdue for one. Considering the rot of the past 60 years, it was to be expected really.

  4. ” cannot even begin to describe the public backlash that will occur if #Corinavirus kills fewer Americans this year than the flu. For starters, the medical establishment will look like even bigger fools than the #ClimateChange establishment”

    Just a question, there was no lockdown for the flu, so could this lockdown skew the above statement?

    • You can bet your last coin that the politicians will proclaim that it was so, because of the draconian measures, but they will probably be wrong … again.
      However, it will be a difficult challenge to argue against the “common knowledge” that will be established by these measures regardless of the data.
      The bigger determinant will be the percentage of cases in their population listed by country indicating those who instituted lock-downs versus those who did not.
      I believe the initial data has begun to be assessed.

    • Well, we have a “control” group in Mexico, which could also frame the political race in another way.

  5. Easy answer is that investing in health care does not remake modern industrial society, it in fact requires modern industrial “rich” society in order to be able to invest in health care. Hence, no interest in that.

    Without it, we would be like they are in africa today, sitting ducks hoping it passes us by, maybe splash some lambs blood above the lintel of your door in lieu of actual health care?
    I read that worked at one time, as long as you believe.

    • Pat, I have been hearing things like, “we have to shut down the economy [effectively] to save our healthcare system”. Is this like, “we had to destroy the village to save it”? I am concerned some people may have their sense of what-depends-on-what reversed from reality.

      • Will Nelson April 10, 2020 at 1:30 pm
        Pat, I have been hearing things like, “we have to shut down the economy [effectively] to save our healthcare system”. Is this like, “we had to destroy the village to save it”? I am concerned some people may have their sense of what-depends-on-what reversed from reality.

        Plus ten to the 44th

    • Hooray for D’Souza… here’s some additional food for thought:

      Doctor’s and Hospital’s mistakes are reputed to kill 150,000 people a year in the US.
      Adverse reactions to prescription drugs kills another 250,000 people per year in the US.

      So the “medical” establishment kills at least 10x more than the Kung Flu – should we do a shut down or decimation of the economy because of this avoidable human “pathogen” killing so many of us?

  6. As some have noted if the planet has healed itself in 3 weeks then there is no climate crisis and no action needed.

    Wha? OK, so I sometimes amaze myself with my own ability to be oblivious but could someone please explain that to me.

    • Yeah, I’m not following Josh’s logic either.

      The “planet” didn’t need healing in the first place, except from so-called “green” policies.

          • SYH

            Oh boy, well this “is” embarrassing . . . “I’M” confused now like you just were. Is there any longer a reason to disbelieve the world is cruelly ironic?

            So I looked up “SYH” and I found a couple references:

            If you’re of the “urban” persuasion, that’d be “Shaking Yer Head,” but if you’re a member of the “literary slang” club, then it’d be, “Shut Yer Head” (spelling “Yer” [sic] for “Your” for effective affectation in both).

            Which one is it? Urban or Slang? I.e., am I “shaking” or “shutting”?

            Thanks for your help!

        • well you can see the himalayas from someplace in India now..
          and the waters in venice are clear
          gee who knew those were the standards used for a healed planet?

          I subtitled that toon as I had a dream there are cloudsin my coffee
          oh shit, I didnt model them in!

      • Thanks for clarifying.

        It doesn’t change my assessment, though. If Mann had read that article, presumably he would conclude that it proves the need to shut down society permanently and would redouble his efforts.

      • Thank you. As Josh points out, if the environment can heal itself in three days, the damage we’re doing is pretty superficial. Of course, the article misses that salient point. LOL

        The article mentions NO2 which isn’t a greenhouse gas per se but which does result in ozone. That led me to this little tidbit.

        Both spectra show a large ozone feature at 9.6 μm and characteristic drops in signal below 8 μm and above 13.5 μm due primarily to water transmission effects.

        No mention of CO2 at 15 um. That’s interesting.

        I can’t find in the article which altitude the spectra are taken at but the Figure 1 shows aircraft, not satellites. In any event, the obtained spectra seem to be at serious odds with this. I’m a bit busy right now but this does seem to be worth following up.

  7. I hope that a silver lining coming out of this Chinese flu panic is that people will no longer take unverified and untested models at face value. Or rather, that they will forcefully reject any public actions based on those models.

    • Salute!

      The biggest silver lining, Rhoda, will be if the climate model folks cannot show even a hundredth of a degree of “cooling” by all the “mitigation” already in effect when compared to business as usual. And then be questioned by media about seeing expected results.

      At least the medical folks are admitting GIGO exists and as one doctor on the White House briefing stage has stated, “data beats models every time”. And put different data in, you get different model results. Duhhhh….

      Gums sends…

  8. I attended an interesting talk in 2018 by a Georgia Tech. professor about the risks to space-based critical infrastructure (e.g., GPS and communication satellites) from hostile action. I asked a question about the much greater damage from large asteroid impacts.

    In her response she noted there are three dimensions to assessing risks and appropriate responses:

    1) How likely is it to happen.
    2) How bad would it be if it did happen.
    3) What can we do to mitigate the risk and what resources would it require.

    So looking at my hypothetical asteroid collision: (1) very unlikely, (2) really, really bad, and (3) effectively nothing at the present time. In other words, not worth committing significant resources to at the moment.

    Risks of another viral pandemic:

    1) Very likely in the next 20 years.
    2) Significant damage from both the disease and large scale lockdowns enacted in response.
    3) Quite a bit, from obvious things like stockpiling medical supplies and improving the regulations governing testing and approving treatments, to improving new vaccine development, manufacture and distribution.

    And money spent on (3) would be productive even without another global pandemic — many lives and work days are lost every year from seasonal flu.

    Risks of Climate Change:

    1) In realistic terminology, “climate change” is guaranteed to happen no matter what we do. The vast majority of it over time spans of many centuries or longer.
    2) Some projected effects like sea level rise are clearly harmful, but there is no credible evidence this is happening at a faster rate than civilization has been living with for the past 300 years, which is pretty good reason to believe we can continue to cope.
    3) Very little to nothing. Only models support the claim we can reverse climate change by abandoning fossil fuels, and the costs would be horrendous.

    I hope some positive realization comes out of the Wuhan virus outbreak. If people complain about life under a “shelter at home” order, they might just rethink how willing they are to take a one-way trip back to the 17th century.

    • Agreed – however, the reader should realize that there is a continuum based on present cost.

      Identifying potential impactors is a modest investment. Even doing engineering studies for diversion, and continually updating for new technology, is also a modest investment. Continuing to enhance our space working capabilities is a larger investment – but with short-term benefits other than being eventually able to avert the catastrophe. Simply doing nothing because the probability (in any near future) is so low would be idiotic.

      Same thing with sea level rise, or any other long-term possibility.

    • So looking at my hypothetical asteroid collision: (1) very unlikely, (2) really, really bad, and (3) effectively nothing at the present time. In other words, not worth committing significant resources to at the moment.

      The 1. very unlikely scenario is false. Several times each year an unknown object slips inside the LD (Lunar Distance) , much to everyone’s surprise. One of these days one of these WILL intersect Earth’s orbit.
      It is like the elephant in the room – nobody wants to admit it, but an extinction event is likely to happen sooner rather than later.

      • You really have to define ‘soon’. How many million years ago was the last asteroid caused extinction. My WAG is that the chances of it happening within the lifetime of anyone currently living is about zilch.

      • “Soon” depends on the asteroid’s orbit.
        Every time an asteroid passes “close” to earth its orbit get changed. It also passes close to other asteroids in the earth’s orbit(locality) and passes an unknown number of other objects that may change it’s orbit.

        Since we haven’t tallied many meteorites we don’t have much to go on. From the number of large craters discovered and many smaller meteorites the estimate is that a 100-1000 megaton equivalent explosion is likely once in 5000 years, +/-.

  9. Home tuition task for the lock-down pupils
    Corona Virus kills people,
    Cold weather kills people.
    Warm weather kills Corona Virus.
    Discuss.

  10. The real fools will be the lying, fact free, fake news MSM propaganda machine so intent on “getting” Trump they threw away what semblance of journalistic ethics they had left to stoke the faux pandemic panic.

    • I reckon it would take at least 32 years of zero emissions if the 2ppm/yr increase is exclusively due to our emissions, we’re 64ppm above 350ppm at the moment, and as has been reported, natural sinks reduce by half the actual increase that total emissions would imply of 4ppm/yr. In other words, the net increase is our emissions offset by the natural sinks which currently suck up about 2ppm/yr of our emissions. Take away our 4ppm/yr but retain the 2ppm sink, then instead of rising a net 2ppm, it should drop 2ppm/yr starting from the current 414 ppm. Seven years of that brings us to 400ppm. As atmospheric CO2 decreases, the sinks also must decrease asymptotically toward whatever the equilibrium CO2 concentration should be. So probably would take more than 32 years with society shut down.

      Don’t hold your breath waiting.

  11. Cuts and grazes will kill more kills Americans this year than the flu… if people stopped using antibiotics.

    So anyone who argues that we should stop using antibiotics is a fool who doesn’t understand cause and effect. Likewise with actions to curb the incidence of Covid19.
    (See also Anti-Vaxxers).

    • abuse and overuse of AB IS a real and growing issue
      you could use Iodine or teatreeoil on cuts and get the same result.
      cheaper and safer.

  12. Can we just get some hydroxychloroquine pills to prevent the next outbreak in the fall?winter? If Africans have few cases of corona virus attributed to their use of hydroxychloroquine, why can’t we all get some? In 1998, I was prescribed hydroxychloroquine for joint pain; took for 4 months. I suffered no adverse reactions and the rheumatologist did not do a baseline EKG. I don’t know what the big deal is. It is a cheap preventative.
    I would call it the paquenil jelly bean. Happy Easter.

    • Hydroxychloroquinine isn’t a panacea. Among other things, it can be toxic if the person taking it is a diabetic and taking metformin.
      For another, the dosage being used to test efficacy against coronavirus is quite high.
      And lastly – any Africa news regarding proof against to coronavirus should be taken with a giant grain of salt: the entire continent averages age around 20. Since coronavirus doesn’t affect people under 20 at all, apparently, it isn’t clear that it is the age distribution there as opposed to anything else.

  13. Most people are mostly wrong about most things most of the time. This is because there are an infinite number of wrong answers compared to the very few correct ones.

    • Just the mere fact that there are many more wrong answers than right answers is no reason to think people will be wrong more often than right. If your point was valid, you would not have been able to tell us about it, because every letter you typed had 25 opportunities for you to type the wrong letter.

      SR

      • When one types, there is instant feedback to show if the right letter was selected, hence we learn to type correctly (accurately). In most cases, there is no feedback when a person choices a wrong answer. At least not in the immediate time frame.
        People are capable of imagining an infinite number of incorrect answers. And most people are rather illogical. So I tend to agree with the original statement. But because most people are wrong most of the time, perhaps I am wrong.

    • Peter,
      The fallacy in that is that people choose their answers at random, which of course they do not.

        • Well, many use flawed logic and reasoning but almost none choose their arguments at random. Take griff or Loydo for example. Always wrong but very consistent with their political biases. On the other hand for further proof, I’m always right 🙂

  14. AGW climate change spending is a multi-leg bet:

    1 the planet must be on a warming trajectory
    2 that warming must be dangerous
    3 it must be caused by CO2
    4 the CO2 must be from human activity
    5 reduction measures must work
    5a it must be a concerted response.

    Only one of those legs has to be wrong for the money to be wasted.

    As it is, only the first of those legs may actually be right and even then the result might yet be subject to a stewards’ inquiry.

    Only a gambling addict would see value there.

    • Ah, but here’s the rub. The crony capitalists don’t care about the whole balance sheet. They intend to cannibalize society to their benefit by selling “much-needed” snake oil.

      The swamp politicians don’t care about the impact on anyone but themselves, and they will retain all their privileges and comforts. They will continue to bribe 50% of the population to vote for them by giving them a pittance needed to maintain a miserable life, assuming that we don’t “learn from the more successful Chinese model” and dispense with elections.

      The research ”scientists” who provide us with so many laughs on the popular humor outlet EurekAlert! will continue to understand that their lunch pail is filled by discovering that our dear and wise political leaders are correct about the urgent need of climate change action.

      The communists and the human extinction advocates will do all they can to encourage the collapse of human civilization, not because they currently control or secretly direct the whole project as some conspiracy theorists may posit, but simply because they seek to exploit the idiocy of their enemies.

      The ordinary citizen will at first conform to the bien pensant fashionable opinion while it doesn’t have any practical impacts on them beyond the inconvenience of constant virtue-signaling. After their fatal error of voting in the purveyors of green totalitarianism, they will cling to the pitiful government payments that notionally keep them from starvation. Most will redouble their faith in the green religion rather than having to admit having made a monumental error in judgment.

      Have I missed any of the major players or the incentives that drive them to pursue insane schemes?

  15. I’m missing the acconpanying article that says the planet has healed itself in 3 weeks – or missing something vital. Anyone able to help?

  16. Unfortunately, Canada is held hostage by an enviro[n]metal fascist cabal, masquarading as a silver-spooned bimbo, which, on April 1 (very appropriate) doubled the CO2 tax.

  17. I love me some Dinesh! Oh wait, I’m a conservative. I’m not supposed to like people of color. Ha!

    If anyone thinks climate change is even remotely the threat of a sudden antigenic shift with a Corona virus, I have an iceberg to sell them in Florida.

  18. You are all dreaming if you think there will be consequences. The spin will play out that “it would have been so much worse” had the not cracked down (from the school of “its worse than we thought”), there will be reviews excuses and rationalizations that the modelling was in fact correct and just needed adjusting (familiar?) then finally it will all be demed a great success a awards, medals and promotions will be dished out to those who played out the authoritarian fantasy. Along the way some liberties will be lost forever as “controls” will be deemed good for us.

  19. –Dinesh D’Souza

    I cannot even begin to describe the public backlash that will occur if #Corinavirus kills fewer Americans this year than the flu. For starters, the medical establishment will look like even bigger fools than the #ClimateChange establishment–

    I think SARS-CoV-2 will kill fewer Americans then the number that “common Flu”
    has killed in a year in US. But Dinesh is wrong.
    1] Dinesh probably imagines models can predict the future.
    Well, they can’t.
    No model can predict the future of anything. And even the IPPC knows that.
    Basically, Model are “projections” of “experts” who might even be experts.
    Projections like or in the sense: “you are projecting” involves bias.
    They should include bias of “a expert” and a expert.
    Climate or virus projections can not predict the future, nor can the psychics.
    2] Any politician should want a higher end “projection” rather than a low end
    “projection” and US politicans {ie, Donald Trump} have lowered their current projection, and I think it is high, but not “too high” because their still remains unknowns and politicans should except the worse and work towards a “better result”. “Like looks bad, but we can lower it” is a good thing for a pol to say. As compared to running in circles in panic- which is a bad thing.

  20. First problem… by definition it isn’t a “pandemic” unless it exceeds the natural death rate.

    Can’t account for other countries but the US per-capita death rate of 1-in-4-million is a *hell* of a lot lower than the natural US per-capita death rate of 1 in 134 due to natural death over the same year.

  21. I’d like to return to computer modelling for a moment.
    In engineering we knew the stuff, the equations, the parameters long before computers and used to do the work with slide rules and graph paper. Brunel designed many structures and Radar design in WW2 did not use a computer, they used intellect and understanding. From this point transferring the whole lot to computers for speed and accuracy was obvious. There are zero (None at all) free parameters in these engineering models, we know everything necessary to make very accurate predictions.

    Climate and Virus spread have no known rules, we don’t know enough to even begin the process. But the climate modellers think they do and “free parameters” are treated as simple tuning elements, many of which interact. There is no hope that these models predict anything, but rather than try to get the underlying science correct, they use all kinds of guesses to get the results they want! The elimination of the little ice age and medieval warm period prove it beyond doubt, they do not have a model at all but a useless piece of computer nonsense. When we have a climate model with no free parameters which cannot be proved by actual science we will have something workable, until then it is all nonsense. Try writing a computer game with a number of random free parameters, it will be so chaotic that a human will not even be able to begin to play it, as every run will give a completely different game. It is that simple.

  22. Sorry, but Dinesh is an idiot talking head.
    New York just passed 4000 nCOV dead per 10M population. New Jersey is over 2000. Nor is the NY epicenter the only place: Louisiana is over 1600.
    If flu typically kills 0.1% to 0.2% – that’s 1000 to 2000 per 10M per year.
    Italy and Spain overall are already over 3000, while Belgium and France are 2000 and counting with several other European nations following.
    New York is likely to hit at least 6000 – possibly 8000 or more per 10M pop. Lombardy region in Italy hit 10000 and counting.

  23. Can someone help me with Josh’s reference? Who said the Earth has healed itself in three weeks? What is that referring to? Thanks!

Comments are closed.