“Global warming: the evidence”

In climate science, “evidence” is “computer predictions.”  Like when scientists predicted the end of snow in Australia 30 years ago and the demise of kangaroos.

Sea-levels are expected to rise by between 0.5 and 1.5 metres

Australia’s snowfields are likely to disappear, native animals would be driven to extinction

27 Dec 1989 – Global warming: the evidence – Trove

The situation is so bad, that you can now purchase Australian ski areas for less than one hundred million dollars.

Vail to Buy Hotham Alpine Resort And Falls Creek In Australia

Sea level in Sydney Harbour has risen a terrifying  zero cm over the past 130 years.

I spent much of my life designing computers, and never once saw them predict anything. Climate predictions are made by humans seeking political objectives and/or funding. Blaming computers for the bad behavior of humans, doesn’t seem appropriate.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to “Global warming: the evidence”

  1. Thomas Heath says:

    Visiting your website on a Monday morning should be standard operating procedure for people on anti-depressants. :-) The world owes you a debt of gratitude for uncovering the den of vipers intent on destroying us.

  2. Petit_Barde says:

    Climate science is worse than GIGO :
    – fake data in order to back a fake catastrophic global warming,
    – fake models, hence fake programs, in order to push the CO2 scam and obliterate other factors,
    – the output being the expected gold standard fake predictions.

  3. GCSquared says:

    “I spent much of my life designing computers, and never once saw them predict anything. ”

    The judgment is a little harsh. After all, computers are used to plot motions of asteroids and satellites, to design structures like bridges and buildings, and heat flow in power plants. All these applications are successfully useful predictions of one kind or another.

    Of course, the reliability of the prediction depends on how well the underlying model has been validated and the calculations implemented. GIGO was a famous, unfortunately forgotten, saying in early Fortran days.

    A model (computer or otherwise) can be trusted to predict accurately only after its foundations have been solidly established, mostly meaning that it’s predictions agree with experimental data. When model and data disagree, the model is corrected.

    In climate “science”, when model and data disagree, they modify the weather data instead.

    • tonyheller says:

      Software written by humans is used to help humans make predictions. Computers are machines and have no opinions about anything.

      • R Shearer says:

        Not yet anyway. If I were Naomi Oreskes computer, I would surely disable all of my camera ports.

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Some computers can predict the future. Boulder Progressive told me that his Alexa doesn’t start listening to the conversations in the room until he says “Alexa”.

    • arn says:

      No matter what we think about computers:
      Shouldn”t we be extremly surprised that the “predictions” of computers
      nowadays,as they are thousands of times more powerful than those 30 years ago,are still as shitty in predicting as those 3 decades ago???

      The problems may be that the computer got their input/bias from
      the coders,
      therefore they only deliver results the scientist want to get from the very beginning.
      This is neither science nor prediction but simply missusing computers as
      bias conformation device.

      • ANTHONY LOPEZ says:

        !!! OK ¡¡¡

      • rah says:

        It’s called GIGO (Garbage in Garbage out).

        • Jason Calley says:

          In the case of current climate models it is AIGO — “anything in, garbage out”.

          Climate modeling is an attempt to predict the states of a chaotic system, an attempt which is not physically possible, even in theory. The best they could do is to predict the rather vague and general neighborhood of what the climate will be most likely to become — but even that prediction depends on several unlikely determining factors. Among those factors are these: We would need to understand what every fundamental meteorological component of the system is. We would need to do the same for solar and cosmic components. We would need to understand all the biological components. We would need to understand all the geological components. We would need to have a strong understanding of the exact, fundamental physics of every component of all subsystems. We would have to have exact data on the current state of the atmosphere down to a resolution of a few millimeters. We would have to have a theologically powerful and precise way of computing all this. Even after all this, we can still only get in the general neighborhood of likely outcomes past more than a month or two, at most. We are dealing with a chaotic system which cannot be predicted long term without a computational system at least as complicated as the system under analysis. Realistically, the best prediction we can make is this. “Past observation and our best inference of previous behavior shows certain cyclic patterns occurring over a certain time scale and with a certain amount of variation. Chances are, the future will show about the same sets of variations as the past.”

      • David A says:

        Arn, you are missing the point, now they make far more bad predictions much quicker.

  4. Norilsk says:

    Intense flooding in the Ottawa Valley was caused by heavy snowfall and cold weather this past winter. I was up near Renfrew on April 6, and there was still three feet of snow. By daughter’s in-laws said it was the worst winter in the 27 years they had been living there close to the river.

    The Ottawa mayor claims that it is a climate catastrophe of the global warming kind.
    https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1670572&binId=1.1487308&playlistPageNum=1&fbclid=IwAR10Q5npmY6OKFid7LlE4Wi1MP_SGyJvYie2pX6hQF36WXLjTBFE1OQg4bI

  5. Rah says:

    We sure could use some warming here in central Indiana. Need to dry out. We’re 5 1/2 inches over the average for the year so far and are forecast to receive another 1 to 2 inches this week. Flying Canadian refugees everywhere! They strut in front of my truck at the facilities I’ve delivered to today like they’re daring me to run over them. Actually roast goose isn’t sounding bad right now.

  6. Norilsk says:

    The effects of melting snow on the Ottawa River with some spring showers added in.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5BtCRcfEVI

  7. Don B says:

    Congratulations to the people at Vail Resorts who obviously do not believe the alarmists claiming the end of snow. They have been buying ski areas for awhile.

    “Broomfield, Colo.-based Vail Resorts will pay $82 million for Triple Peaks LLC, the parent company of Sunapee, Okemo and Crested Butte (Colo.) Mountain Resort, according to a news release from Vail. The deal is expected to close this summer, and Vail would also give Triple Peaks $155 million to pay off the leases that all three resorts have with a company linked to Och-Ziff Real Estate.

    “Vail Resorts also said it is buying Stevens Pass Resort in Washington in a separate transaction from another company, for $67 million.”

    https://www.concordmonitor.com/Vail-Buying-Sunapee-Okemo-Ski-Resorts-17955058

  8. Eric Simpson says:

    The fact that we are getting more snow instead of the predicted less snow proves climate change. Because climate change is about the the unexpected happening. Well, we certainly expected less snow, but the opposite actually happened. What a shocking surprise, but it’s proof of our theory! When the unexpected happens it’s almost certainly due to climate change. Cut CO2 to the bone. Or we’re doomed! /s

  9. Mr Sir says:

    What do climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, and pro-circumcision people have in common?

    They all hate little kids and cling to pseudoscience.

    • Bruce of Newcastle says:

      You should stop denying climate science then Mr Sir. The real world climate data shows nothing much is actually happening.

    • Gator says:

      The first step is admitting that you have a problem. Good for you little man!

    • rah says:

      LOL! It is not us deplorables voting to make infanticide legal and you leftist morons are worrying about religious circumcisi0n? This deplorable probably had more vaccinations by the time he was 30 than you’ll have in your entire life.

    • Colorado Wellington says:

      Climate change has been occurring for eons and we don’t hate you. Now, run along.

  10. R Shearer says:

    On the fort in Syndney Harbor, the modern picture must be at low tide because if anything, sea level is lower by that pic.

    • Graeme No.3 says:

      Possibly. The water level is monitored internally in the fort in a ‘well’. Averaged out the rise is about 1.4 mm per year so for 170 years the rise is around 240 mm or 9 inches.

  11. Bob G says:

    Have a look at accuweather.com radar it’s currently snowing in 17 States and in 27 hours it will be the month of May. When will the left have someone brave enough to say the emperor has no clothes or in this case the emperor is bundled up with a lot of clothes!

  12. jim says:

    Here is a lesson in evidence for Al Gore’s dupes:
    –Evidence of warming IS NOT evidence that man’s CO2 is the cause.
    –Warming is NOT evidence of its cause
    –Unusual weather occurrences are not evidence of its cause
    –Correlation is not causation
    –An expert’s assertion is not evidence.
    –Majority belief is not evidence
    –Government assertions are not evidence.
    –“What else could it be” is not evidence
    –Polls are not evidence
    –Climate models are not evidence

  13. Peter says:

    “Sea level in Sydney Harbour has risen a terrifying zero cm over the past 130 years”. Using two pictures taken 130yrs apart is not the correct way to assess sea level changes. I would prefer to use this database:

    https://www.psmsl.org/data/obtaining/stations/196.php

    Sea level in Sidney harbor has risen by a whooping 12cm in the last 120yrs. One cm per decade. Not zero, but far a way from any alarming run-away sea level increase.

  14. David of Aussie says:

    Here’s a comparison of Fort Denison from the same angle.
    You can count the brinks from the same window down to sea level

    • arn says:

      Fort Denison is doomed.

      At this rate it will be completely under water within 20.000 years.
      Children in the year 22019 won’t know what Fort Denison is(because it turned into dust by 15019)-
      but they will know what Snow is.

  15. John of Cloverdale, WA, Australia says:

    Admirers of women can relate to a comparison of heel size with Sydney’s sea level rise in the last 120 years. Sorry boys, no legs :-)

  16. Squidly says:

    I spent much of my life designing computers, and never once saw them predict anything.

    Oh my God Tony !! … Not a truer statement could have been made!!! … So right you are on so many levels!

  17. DD says:

    I spent most of my life programming computers and if they did not follow my assumptions and give the result I wanted I needed to fix the bugs.

  18. David of Aussie says:

    An update with line markers. Note the unchanging high tide mark for the “It’s only because of tide differences” nay sayers

  19. Tom Harding says:

    Why does the IPCC refuse to allow any papers about the heat of the sun as a driver of climate change?
    Why do they believe that Miludin Milankovitch’s studies of the elliptical orbit of the
    earth around the sun was only valid thousands of years ago and not today?
    How does CO2 rise up in the atmosphere to form the ‘dome’ of greenhouse gasses
    over the planet when that gas is 1.5X heavier than atmosphere?
    So many questions—so few answers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.