05 April 2020

Global Warm Ping Cough

Something that's driven me insane with Globull Warmering that's repeating with Wu Ping Cough is the models.

It's important to make the old predictions available to compare with the actually happened to test the veracity of the model.

You don't just add the what happened to the front, and add more model to the back.

You have to show where your model missed and what you corrected and then overlap the new model that accounts for the what really happened.

Several sites are showing dire predictions and as the not as dire as predicted keeps happening in the real world, they just move the direst date down the road.

The model can't be wrong, therefore the start point for Armageddon was just off a week or so...

But since they expunged the week-ago predictions, you can't see how far off they were.



  1. Yup. What you said. And it's not just the MSM that is disappearing past data. There are bloggers out there doing the same thing.

    Very interesting, no?

    What is funny is when someone confronts both the MSM and the aforementioned bloggers with proof and they just ignore it, even when everyone is saying basically, "There, you did do it, you said this, you said that, and we (or he - the accuser) said this and that and here it is and..." And it does no good. Because they (MSM or Blogger) are right, we are peons, therefore we are wrong no matter what.


    I highly respect science. It's when people use pseudo-science instead of science, or unscientificically applied semi-science, that I stop respecting them.

    Hypothesis - think of a thing. Start proving or disproving it. Develop a Theory. Theory must be provable, and repeatable, and repeatable by other people. If not provable, or repeatable, then, congratulations, you've just done SCIENCE and disproved your hypothesis or theory.

    Calling someone a denier or a poopyhead because they don't believe you when you change your results does not make you Galileo. Well, it does, in that Galileo was such an all-powerful ass that he felt he didn't need to argue his points, and people should just believe him because he's Galileo.

    Work, prove it, get it verified, then be an ass for being right. That's science and is a-okay, well, except for the being an ass part, maybe, depending on how right you are.

    Expecting people to believe you because you are at Carl-Sagan level of assness, or Isaac-Asimovness, or even Stephen Hawkings-level, that's not science. That's a cult-leader.

  2. I was reading comments to some post on Watts Up With That and one commenter was full of optimism that maybe people will see just how bad these computer models are and think, "hey, climate change is all computer models. I wonder if they're just as bad?"

    I think that's too optimistic, but we can hope!


You are a guest here when you comment. Be polite. Inappropriate comments will be deleted without mention. Amnesty period is expired.

Do not go off on a tangent, stay with the topic of the post. If I can't tell what your point is in the first couple of sentences I'm flushing it.

If you're trying to comment anonymously: Sign your work.

Anonymous comments must pass a higher bar than others. Repeat offenders must pass an even higher bar.

If you can't comprehend this, don't comment; because I'm going to moderate and mock you for wasting your time.