How to analyse computer models of the climate

Thanks to Tom Nelson I suspect we have busted climate models to hell. He tweeted this today, which I followed up and realised this person actually appears to admit the atmosphere and related planet is as complex as the human body, something I as a total amateur stated some time ago:

Hayhoe argues that "the planet's as complex as the human body" pic.twitter.com/7yynNI6C9r

Now having replied to a few questions on it here was my response:

Someone just suggested as you can model the earth's atmosphere with computer programs you could model the human body and carry out tests. I'd be fascinated to see doctors using models of the human body to determine their treatments and diagnoses. Like a computerised kidney, brain or entire body. Could they do it?  You could introduce cancer cells into an organ and test virtual treatments on them. Saves lots of animals. Imagine modelling an entire circulatory system and trying treatments for leukaemia on a computer program. Of course you'd need to factor in the effects of all the organs as well but modern programs are incredible now.

Now going by the daily claims of climate modellers creating the largest and most complex system comparable to the human mind and body combined, I doubt a single one of them would either dare to take on modelling a single organ, let alone the whole body. So why the atmosphere?

QED I say, and busted.

The victimhood of the left

Surfing Twitter for the last week to read the often side splitting hilarious tweets about Rachel Dolezal's new transracial movement has shown me the inner workings of the mind (they only share the single one, via groupthink) of those of the left, and having been through the entire machine a single word comes out at the end, victimhood. "It's not my fault I didn't do well, it's everyone elses'".  This is the babyish immature view we can never succeed as long as others try and stop us. Forget the concepts of competition and freedom, if you are in a western country where the law itself doesn't offer special treatment to Sunnis, Shias or Brahmins as they do in the third world, if you are not a white middle class male then you may as well either chain yourself to the sink or get a McJob as they won't let you get any further. Or something.

What a load of utter steaming garbage.

In counselling one of the main journeys is self development, from blaming others to taking full responsibility. Yet for the first time in my life I've seen into the pathogenic idea (mainly in America but spreading fast elsewhere) of what they call 'white privilege'. People of all educational backgrounds, job statuses, and oddly enough races, who are part of this negative mindset, genuinely claim white people and men enjoy a status in the world above the others because there was slavery in the past, and black people overall have never done as well as white people where they live together. That is the sort of conclusion a child will make when they lose a game or do badly in an exam, blaming the wind, their health, circumstances, basically anything except their own personal responsibility for their own personal failure. I must oversimplify to make the point, but anyone with a belief in white privilege is oversimplifying themselves, so am using their own shortcuts to get to the point. Of course the incredible success of black people both in sub-Saharan Africa, where somehow nearly all the best jobs go to them, and the west where people like Oprah Winfrey, Whoopi Goldberg, Stevie Wonder, Rajendra Pauchauri (head of the UN IPCC), and now of course president Obama, if you've got it you will make it.

I have already also mentioned the blindness of exam marking. They can't see who wrote the exam they mark, deliberately so, and a caller to the radio from Africa this week said he came to England, passed two degrees and is an academic because he could. Don't listen to me, I am just the reporter, listen to those who have been there, done it and proved the naysayers wrong. Divide and rule however works very nicely, so when you find white people constantly being behind such myths, fanning the flames of hate and division you realise some of it is actually not invented by the minorities themselves, but deliberately created to cause such division to sabotage society.

But whoever created it the bottom line is it's nonsense and dangerous for anyone to fail simply because of their appearance. Exam results are not based on appearance, or comedy or musical or artistic talent. A product is not judged on the ethnicity of its inventor, nor a book or essay. Does anyone think that unless they're a paid up member of the KKK a publisher will distinguish between a piece written by a black or white person? I even hear women complain their art, music and writing has done badly as they are women, although as many have proved since, by either not revealing their gender or by actually being as good as the men, they have done just as well, like JK Rowling. If you invent an obstacle for you it exists, and you will be driving forwards with the brakes on, and carry a negative attitude which alone will put everyone off as they can pick it up. You become your own worst enemy, and create self fulfilling prophecies, looking at everyone else's success and blaming your own lack for who you are not what you do.

It breaks the first rule of counselling to blame others for your failure, and the obsolete and divisive myth of 21st century white privilege, combined with its evil cousin feminism are the worst examples of doing so and as a result tearing apart society and causing false obstacles and acting out the blame on the perceived white male perpetrators as if it really was their fault the others couldn't reach their levels. Like the original myth of Marx's class war, it has now split in three to include race and sex. And three times as dangerous and divisive as a result.

Boundaries

The 21st century has seen the blurring and attempted removal of long-standing boundaries we have used since the dawn of time, now referred to by their opponents as 'binary' or 'non-existent', claiming our existing terms were invented and false, and now breaking the old rules for one by one, making them fluid and essentially meaningless.

Gender, marriage and now race are being challenged and subsequently eliminated from the realm of existence, with their original official and known meanings being made obsolete and replaced with whatever people want them to mean. Of course such a trend has no limits. The binary scientific world of up and down, left and right, positive and negative underly physics, chemistry, biology and the universe itself. Matter and anti-matter were supposed to have created the universe by leaving more matter in ours than anti-matter. Put together one with the other and they cancel into pure energy. Saying that is a artificial man-made concept won't work when you blow yourself to high heaven trying it.

Men and women nearly always have XX or XY genes with a few exceptions. Their sexual apparatus is reflected by the genes, as their secondary sexual characteristics. Marrying means putting together two different parts to create a whole, like a male and female plug. Try as you might but two males or females will never manage it. These sounded like basic primary school logic till recently, now I find myself having to justify what everyone on the planet knew till about 2010 or so when gay marriage and fluid gender were invented to challenge the status quo. Sure, you can call all things whatever you like, but the two magnets will always attract or repel each other whether you say their polarity is a personal choice. Race has become so specific a DNA test can now analyse your origins going back for many generations. Both race and gender can be discerned from a minute swab of DNA, so pretending you are something else or uncertain is merely self deception and deceiving others.

But the biggest problem is society's gradual acceptance of such softening of certainties. They welcomed gay marriage as it seemed to help the homosexual community, although they already had the closest equivalent in civil partnerships, created because marriage could only fulfil its consummation and procreation with a man and a woman. Now apparently it doesn't matter. Because it doesn't cause problems to others no one has really wasted their effort risking universal criticism by trying to challenge it. Fluid gender however has meant removing healthy organs from thousands of people to make their outside supposedly match their inside. They also remove healthy limbs from people who hate them, which breaches the Hippocratic oath. You can't get them back, the surgeons somehow use the psychological justification to say because someone suffers from a recognised syndrome, body dysmorphia, they will suffer so much from looking the way they were born it is better to cripple them than offer intensive therapy to allow them to accept what they were given like we all must in the end. But the DNA swab will always say the same binary XX or XY, as will their remaining subtle difference even the best surgeon's knife can't alter.

As every black person knows, you can't hide your race from the police or employers, so white people blacking up and wearing a wig can never be black however much they fool people, as the recent story about Rachel Dolezal has proved. The critics have quite rightly said you can't be transracial as only a white person can change enough to look just about black, not vice versa. This has really forced the first boundary on the left, as for the first time hardly anyone accepts the nonsensical claims that race is a choice and as fluid as gender, which I hope I've demonstrated is not either.

Hopefully before this trend spreads to other oppressive concepts such as right and left (as long as you don't try and take a driving test), self-marked exams, cats and dogs, different colours, blurring family ties to allow incest (after all, they are consenting adults, why can't they be allowed to express their love as well?), Down's syndrome, and ultimately Dudley Moore's one legged Tarzan, people will finally see through it. Inclusivity and equality have clear lines, and even the far left PC brigade have to use the term 'differently abled' as even they haven't yet claimed one leg is as good as two. Yet.

The probable birth of multiculturalism

Imagine a meeting in the 70s in a north London council. They are thinking of new policies after a landslide victory for the Labour party. It coincides with the arrival of many thousands of Ugandan Asians, thrown out by Idi Amin and all holding British passports. One voice, a bearded intellectual from the local university, says, I know, why not see how many different nationalities we can get into the country to see what happens? He was a sociologist, one fascinated with society and how it actually comes about, and would like nothing more than have a go at creating his own version rather than let it grow naturally.

A few muffled voices object, and were responded to with 'You can't object, it's racist'. They soon shut up, as even a random unfounded accusation of racism would risk them the sack, and they just had to play along with the growing enthusiasm for the idea, which in fact had been picked totally at random from a combined desire to make an impression on the local area to demonstrate the power of the new council, and the chance happening of a massive influx of people who had absolutely no connection with the country but were here as refugees who happened to have the entitlement to come here rather than anywhere else.

Then of course other Labour politicians picked this up, and rather than risk accusations of racism ended up extending the view far and wide across the left, the Liberals of the day (all three of them) joining the bandwagon and somehow lighting a fire on the far left handful of Socialist Workers and Worker's Revolutionary Party. Within months this crazy experiment became mainstream policy, not because there was a reason for it, but the consequences of challenging or resisting it were so potentially dire the majority of party members had little choice to follow what had only begun as one man's dream. Thirty years later the leader of the Labour Party, Tony Blair, had been brought up politically with the idea for so long he decided to use it as a national policy. Not an express manifesto promise, as because voting was secret nearly everyone could dismiss it and not risk getting into any trouble, so once his party were brought in with a landslide simply made it possible for anyone to come into the country, and even sent people around the world to recruit as many random foreigners to come over and complete the experiment.

This increased the population by millions, reduced the average wage and forced up benefit costs, not to mention the massive pressure on services and housing. Some people dared to object, mainly in areas where English was rarely heard and there were hardly any white people to be seen, and were threatened with prosecution. This soon finished off, besides the far right groups who every now and then demonstrated against the transformation of where they were born and grew up, only to face violent opposition from groups on the far left who called them Nazis for daring to challenge the policy. It reached the point where hardly anyone in politics or the media could question the policy, and the standard response was 'But what exactly is the harm in immigration?'. As soon as anyone answered they were cut down and made to look like a bigot, so opposition remained on the fringes. Within twenty years a country like any other had become an experimental test tube, where people had forgotten what it was like before, and mainly accepted a country unrecognisable and unique around the world, and based on what the professor had decided to name his 'Multicultural experiment'. The country and culture would never recover. It was not the immigrant's fault, they had been invited or encouraged to come, all from dire countries where Britain seemed like heaven in comparison, even where many call radio stations to object to the way they are treated, and the decadence in the country compared to their own culture, but they still chose to come here. You can't legally or morally send a single person back, so not only is the experiment random but irreversible. And as the political culture has been permanently changed by the threat of being labelled racist the changes appear permanent in the future, with predictions making a million new arrivals every four years until the country resembles the countries they left and they no longer choose to come as there are no longer any benefits to be gained by doing so.

Now part of this story was 100% true and half was made up, but although I have no actual idea how such a totally bizarre idea became a mainstream one, and one actually named as a virtue of multiculturalism, where it is not only treated as an experiment for its own sake but something all societies should aspire to. Why? That is the one question they will never be able to answer, as there isn't one. How could there be? It's a random experiment only justified after the event. That may only be my own theory but one I suspect is the genuine answer. Or sabotage maybe.

People really are different

I came across this view in the early 70s, after reading many books on medicine, psychology and genetics, that despite the scientific evidence to the contrary (greatly increased since then) some people still believe people are born virtually the same and changed by their environment. This is the root of all extreme left wing thought, the one that hates 'stereotyping', as it correctly points out every single racial and ethnic group has its own unique blend of characteristics, like every other small family, and like it or not they are real.

Of course outside influences have an effect as well, you can make the worst or best of anyone and learn from whatever's around you. But that doesn't make who you are any different underneath. Twin studies, most of all separated twin studies both show common attributes and common genes. Every day they attribute more individual attributes to genes, and assuming environment makes a person does not explain the unique personalities in the same family growing up together, or similarities with other family members who were not present but closely related. This is true and proven science, yet with all their talk of stereotyping, racism, equality and the like the left refuse to accept individuals are unique, families and ethnic groups have common traits and nothing you can do will iron the bad ones out totally as it is within the individual at such a deep level.

You can teach people how to behave, how to repress their urges to fight and steal, but you cannot make anyone better than their ultimate potential. Mensa say an IQ can be measured lower than it is but can never be made higher as it is fixed and expressed depending on whether you are having a good or bad day. Mathematical, musical or artistic potential is no different, children a few years old show incredible talent with little or no training, and although you can train someone to be reasonable in many areas they have basic abilities in the best are all natural and will flourish with the slightest opportunity. As always, presenting the extremes demonstrates everything subtler in between. You can't train someone with Down's syndrome to be a doctor or a lawyer, why, because their genetic makeup prevents them learning beyond a certain level. Do those on the left accept that? If so then everyone else is a subtler version of that, average, above or below but impossible to rise above whatever limits they were given at conception when their unique genome is fused from the sperm and the egg that created them.

Extend this to in breeding, as they do with animals and plants, and you see certain positive or negative characteristics increase, and as few people disagree pedigree animals don't have specific traits then if you have a small group of people intermarrying for generations you will both enhance negative genetic illnesses and inbuilt talents. Extend this group to any greater size and although the similarities reduce they can't go away altogether, everything is simply a watered down version of the extreme example.

Psychometric tests cover pretty much everything, both your hidden potential qualities and expressed potential. Aggression, practical skills, intelligence, whatever. You can't fool them much and they should remain similar throughout your lifetime, as besides what you have achieved with your expression of talents and handling your weaknesses the underlying trends are always there. In fact how anyone on the left can claim otherwise, leading to such disasters as comprehensive education, which denies children are of varying intelligences at all so stops the best being educated for nothing with the best teaching they need, and allowing people from countries which haven't improved for centuries to live in the west and carry on in similar ways to where they were. Imagining you can mould everyone to be the same was the idea of Chairman Mao, and he either got you the way he wanted, or imprisoned or killed you if you weren't, as they also did in the USSR. Taking positive ideas of removing poverty and using them to remove wealth are taking a ploughshare and making it into a sword. The left only have swords, and with them they stab reason and logic but it can never be hurt as it is perfect and immune. But they demean its standing and make people doubt them and follow their crazy policies.

If you want to see people struggle to succeed, and then waste their talents and not be rewarded for them then believe in equality and similarity, we are not and can never be clones, uniform cells which can all be the same however different we look, the same goes for feminists who want women to be men, they never can be and having 50% different genes with the Y gene men can never even be close to women as half their traits are unique genetically. You can't replace fast muscles with slow muscles either, so the black sprinters and high jumpers must always have an advantage as their muscles have fast cells and long distance runners have slow cells for gradual long term performance rather than sudden spurts. That's based on a microscopic cell test and the related gene. If you can see it physically you must accept it's the same mentally just because it's not physically obvious. Just because mental traits- intelligence, aggression etc are not instantly obvious and may need months of observation to assess adequately doesn't make them any less real, just harder to detect. The left use this subtlety to deny they exist altogether, and end up with Maoist policies as a result, based entirely on confirmable falsehood.

Faking climate change, an overview

In response to false claims on the internet:

my maths is diabolical but the level it works is above that of the IPCC models and graphs. The trendline relies on a 0.2 rise per decade minimum. Each decade below it lowers the trend for the century, and of course if it falls below positive later in the decade as it may well do then the trend may reverse.

However, at the current rate I simply used Dana Nuticelli's figures which echo your own view, and ran them through the formula by dividing 0.8C since 1850 till today, and the total is about 0.05C a decade for a rise from 260-400ppm CO2.

Now bearing in mind the foundations, doubling CO2 adds 1C with no feedback, 1/4-1/2 the total rise is natural, and the remainder is possibly from the added CO2 unless other factors such as solar rays and multidecadal oscillations can be found to explain them. So each decade is as important as any other as the trend while CO2 rises more and more is reducing in opposition.

Therefore as CO2 rises unabated, the temperature responds less and less, and tease out the natural rise, if you remove the adjustments as well you may well fall back to a zero temperature rise, as most graphs have been tilted to rise in the recent decades when they previously didn't.

There is no politics involved here, when I passed four science exams at 16 the figures spoke for themselves. They were not controversial and universally conditionally accepted, the condition being science constantly learns and while most processes are well known and repeatable many such as particle physics and man made elements are always growing over time. Any teenager presented with these simple figures would agree the trend is below 2C a century, and well below it, with the majority being caused by nature or unknown alterations. You can vote communist, socialist worker, national front, conservative, republican, anything you like, but these figures are the same for everyone, no different to sticking a thermometer in an orifice and reading the result, which is never adjusted.

So as an appendix, there is no place for people's politics here, mainly accusing the other side of being politically motivated. You either understand arithmetic and statistics or not, that's it pretty much. A little history, physics, chemistry and geology, all at school level will complete the picture, and the remaining complexities only explain the mechanisms behind the equations and not their results which is all we need to know the whole picture. So politics is unrelated and no qualifications are required, people who say they are can only be trying to protect their own arses by deflecting attention and claiming 'ordinary people' aren't able to assess scientific bullshit.

Yes we are.

Diverting our attention to future possibilities based on negligible changes takes it away from current problems we could be solving. It's a bait and switch method exploited by the media and politicians and stops people dealing with the mess they created which could be cleared up like starvation and poverty in the third world. Reducing CO2 will make that far worse and spread across the developed nations as CO2 emissions only rise as a result of economic growth.

Just as one causes the other directly, if you pull the other string and reduce CO2 emissions the economy will fall in direct proportion. The only time CO2 ever fell was during the economic crisis in 2008, another induced fall would be many times worse as it would stop factories producing and cause massive power shortages.

I am amazed the human race has a far lower practical IQ than I ever imagined. The holes in the AGW claims could drive a truck through them, yet educated individuals are actually the worst culprits at breaking every rule of logic by using induction, speculation, prediction and meaningless conspiracy theories to build an illusory creation of doom and then call any bright person who sees through it a baby killer who should stand trial.

It's the most frightening phenomenon since 1930s Germany, and slowly leading in the same direction. It took Hitler roughly ten years to convert a civilised and the most highly cultured population in the world to brain dead killers. It happened then in living memory and is happening again right here and now.

Operating the information filter

Bringing together a number of earlier points, this is how my information process works. It applies to almost every question, either directly, or in stages if subtle or too complex to then require breaking down. But the same process operates regardless, and is then able to analyse the final result.

I will give some examples how it works, and then you can see how I come to my own conclusions, and why it can then separate beliefs and opinions to actual facts, and what works best for everyone overall.

Off the top of my head road humps are one. Cars are not designed for any more than the minimum number of vertical drops. Simply narrowing or twisting roads slows traffic down and does no damage, so if the council are ideologically determined to reduce speeds to walking pace that does it. Humps are not constant so people slow down suddenly for most and pay more attention to it than the children and animals they are supposed to protect. Emergency vehicles record the number of deaths per year from not reaching patients in time or not getting them to hospital in time as these roads take all vehicles, so we know the number of deaths and claims for damage to cars, but none of the benefits. So using a simple process of cost benefit analysis I find it impossible to justify a road hump, as the aims can be carried out without them and the losses are known.

Not all analyses need to be black and white answers, bus lanes for example depend on the conditions. Generally I can prove they are bad, as when they were introduced in the 70s I discovered rather than build new lanes (as it implies) they simply removed existing lanes and banned other vehicles from using them. That is like chopping a finger in two parts to have an extra one. It is cheating and then where I live the buses wait five minutes or more during the day to get to the bus lane while people queue as the road reduces to one lane for everyone else. This is not unusual, but inevitable, as while the heavy rush hour traffic moves to the right to get out of the bus lane the traffic behind it is held up, often for far longer than the length of the bus lane itself. One road even got rid of it because people couldn't get to the junction as people who made it into the centre were then turning right and cutting off the remainder of the road entirely for people going ahead.

If you either make new lanes, or open them where the roads are so wide they can tolerate them, and there are a lot of buses (most in London have maybe one every ten minutes so pointless) then fine, but otherwise no.

Our old legal argument, week one criminal law, is another example. Our great lecturer, having sold some of the highest numbers of textbooks in this generation, taught us the two sides and then agreed with mine. The question was 'Is the criminal law there to protect people and their property or also enforce morals?'. Now in practice all criminal law systems do both, partly as they originated from the days when religion made the laws, as it still does in many places. Of course all religions differ, so what is moral in Islam is not in Christianity and vice versa. Then from country to country regardless of religion, and over time the moral codes vary constantly. So how can a snapshot in time and location of fixed moral laws be correct at any time, and what is the purpose of enforcing them? None I can see, and technically none.

Whichever issue is now offered, I put it through the same process, and whether fast or slow you get there in the end for nearly all of them. It excludes opinions of course, as most are personal preference, but some can be analysed further into preference based not on consequences but imagination. Utilitarianism is the first principle, then utility. That means does it help the majority, and is it useful at all. Simple but so often obscured in emotion and ideology the actual consequences can easily become hidden. Certain policies however such as high taxation can easily be proved to be wrong, as it hurts everyone one way or another and has no known benefits. It takes less and doesn't give what it does to the poor but spends it as the government of the time chooses, often on themselves. It's always your money and the less they take the better. Government is a last resort as well, only to be used where absolutely necessary and not as a default position to govern everything wherever possible because they can. Basic simple utilitarian principles, and other general principles which can be applied to any issue and provide an answer. In the end there are few questions which can not find an answer using these processes, and they don't rely on trust as you can test them all for yourselves. The underlying principle of all is freedom, and is only taken away as the consequences are harmful in not doing so. Otherwise everything allowing freedom at no cause of harm has to be allowed or is immoral and oppressive.