FACTS

The Oxford English dictionary definition of Fact(s) is: n; thing done, thing known to be true, true, existent, REALITY.

Now that the facts are known regarding the, shall we say less than FACT based scientific principled based shenanigans that have been going on at the East Anglia CRU, the MSM (main stream media) still have their heads in the sand. The BBC is in flat "denial" about any criticism or coverage beyond banal benign mention of "Climategate" but gives widespread coverage to Bianca Jagger bleating on about how the floods in Cumbria are a result of Co2 emissions!

So apart from one or two enlightened MSM commentators, for the most part the MSM have bought into the fantasy, in many cases still promoting the fear mongering which is the nonsense of man made global warming, or to give it its technical name Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

It also appears that a similar organisation promoting the warmist fear in NZ has also had data ‘leaked’ suggesting they too were up to the same tricks that the CRU was up to its nostrils in. We shall wait and see events unfold. But at least in Australia they have courage to stand up to the alarmists.

The FACTS that can be gleaned from the e-mails and data that are now in the public domain are clear in that Mann, Jones and others had an agenda to;

1) Manipulate data to fit their own pre-judged conclusions.

2) Colluded on conclusions

3) Made huge guesses and assumptions on their data where none existed to support their subjective opinions.

4) Deleted data (an illegal activity under FOI) to hide data that would have presented “deniers” with evidence of such activities.

But what people have not understood, but are starting to realise now is that there is no proof i.e. FACTS of "Man-Made" Global Warming unless you subscribe to the irrelevant computer models that the IPCC and the warmist doomsayers accept as the foundation of their religion. Indeed the few facts that are in the public domain suggest that our planet has not seen a global average temperature increase since 1998. yet Co2 has increased. Hmmmm.....

"Climate is what we expect, weather is what we get" Mark Twain.

Yes computer models have a place in let’s say engineering but are utterly useless at fortune telling, how can the I.P.C.C. computer model programmes be efficient let alone accurate at "climate prediction". Remember this, climatologist’s use 30 years of weather data for a given specific location to obtain just ONE data point of climate information for reference. It therefore is self evident given that at the most we have say 150 years of only temperature data that there is only 5 climate data points of information and that’s just on temperature only and from only a limited number of locations globally! Hence AGW advocates need the “computer models” to make themselves seem scientific and irrefutable in their conclusions and use these as sticks to beat the "deniers" about the head.

Let’s look at the computer models then. With engineering you can build and test in the real world to confirm your computer model's accuracy. You can do no such thing with the planet Earth and its climate. You cannot build a planet and its atmosphere to "test" your computer climate model.

Any computer analyst can program a computer model to do whatever they want it to do. If you program a computer model so that X amount of CO2 increase "forces" X amount of temperature increase then it will happen, “garbage in garbage out” (GIGO) in lay people terms. This does not make this true in the real world.

Virtual reality can be whatever you want it to be and computer climate models are just that, they are the bits of code based on the subjective opinions of the few select scientists creating them. The real world has no such bias.

Computers cannot fill in the blanks for you like nature does when you do an experiment in the real world. With computers everything must be programmed into them from the beginning and everything that is programmed into them must be 100% understood and 100% accurate. Even the most advanced and expensive computer climate models include various approximations known as 'parametrisations'. That’s "guesses" to you and I in the real world and they include:

- Cloud Cover

- Convection

- Hydrology

- Transfer of Solar Radiation in the Atmosphere

The existence of parametrisations (approximated assumptions, yes guesses) means that various calculations are not fully resolved to scale and thus the models are flawed by design. You have results based on estimated calculations and thus worthless results. No amount of hand waving and fear mongering propoganda drivel can change this. Any computer code that is not 100% perfect will produce meaningless results with scientific and math calculations.

Fundamental Computer Science - if a Computer Model includes merely one approximation for what latter dependent calculations or data are derived from, then the output of the model is useless. This is Computer Science 101.

Computing incomplete, biased or flat out wrong data (guesses and assumptions) based on poorly understood climate physics in a computer "model" will give you useless output. But since these models have been "tuned" (guesstimated or deliberately altered to get the results they want) they get results that "seem" likely or even convincing to the average computer illiterate, yet they are absolutely meaningless for prediction. What the modelers (your CRU and IPCC so called scientists) do is they keep playing with the numbers until they think they guess right, a useless exercise. Technically they are mathematically adjusting various climate related equations based on theoretical assumptions.

Let me ask you this Question: Would you use a mathematically broken calculator?

Nothing is emotional about computers they are pure logical machines, 1 + 1 must = 2. Imagine trying to use a mathematically broken calculator based on poorly understood arithmetic to get a correct answer but you have no way to confirm that "correct answer" except to wait 50-100 years. Sound crazy? Well welcome to the world of Global Climate Modeling. Yet the models have to be exact to give any sort of relevant results. That is like saying a calculator does not have to be based on accurate arithmetic to be a useful tool in mathematics - utter propaganda.

Computer Science vs. Natural Science

To make matters worse it is not COMPUTER scientists creating these models but natural scientists coding them using Fortran. These natural scientists do not even begin to have the basic understanding of computer science or proper coding practices. Their code is not 100% available publicly and you do not have independent auditing or code validation. Sloppy and buggy code is very likely littered inside these climate model programs yet there is next to no accountability for any of this. How do you separate a programming error from a temperature anomaly? How can you replace observational data with a complex mathematical equation? You can't.

How many of the models used by the IPCC have had ANY bug fixes or code changes since the most recent IPCC report? If they have had ANY at all – then ergo all previous model run results become null and void based on simple logic thus easily invalidating the ridiculous conclusions of the IPCC report.

Alarmism

Alarmist scientists and politicians like Gore presenting their "predictions" as fancy graphs or nicely colored renderings does nothing for the accuracy of their predictions. They like to use colors such as yellow, orange and red to have an emotional effect for worthless computer generated results. You can have a change in temperature of only a fraction of a degree yet since it's percentage change compared to a previous value might be high they will make it bright red. Disingenuous tricks like these are intended to alarm and frighten us. Caution needs to be taken when reading any graphical depiction of temperature changes.

All the computer illiterates are convinced that because something is done on a "super computer" that costs "millions of pounds" it is infallible. Does anyone actually believe "the answer to life the universe and everything is 42!"

The more complex the model, the more "mysterious" it seems to the average person. The public gives computer climate models this mystical aura because they are largely computer illiterate about how they actually work and when they hear the term "computer" they do not want to sound or feel stupid, so they nod their heads and go along with it.

So if these computer models are the reason why were contemplating changing our whole, industry, energy sourcing, lifestyles, social, taxation and political policy I want to know this?

Why are we not turning to computer models to predict the future for everything?

Answer: Because computer models can't, not even remotely predict it. Some of them work "sort of" for the weather in very, very short term results (1-3 days) until all the data they are processing that is wrong combined with all the data they are missing and the millions of variables they are not accounting for start to kick in and grow exponentially the farther out the model runs and BANG- the model is wrong. There are simply way too many variables that they cannot account for and the computer power necessary to even start to take these variables into account does not exist.

The sheer ignorance of the "climate" scientists creating these models is astounding. The fact that they have absolutely no scientific understanding of computer systems in any remote way is appalling. They instead rely on the computer illiteracy of the general public and their perceived standing as "intellectuals" to get away with this fraud.

Yet we are expected to believe that they can "model" the climate 50-100 years in the future when they cannot even give us an accurate weather report 3 days out? And then based on this turn upside down our whole social, personal and political way of life!

Don't be fooled. Computer Models cannot predict the future with anything as complex as the Earth's climate. Go out and glean the FACTS, exercise common sense and reach a judgment based on FACTS not FEAR.

"You cannot reason someone out of an opinion they weren't reasoned into"

"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality." - Nikola Tesla, 1934