Registered On: December 24, 2013
“I wonder if ‘he’ used a computer model last year, when he got herd immunity so wrong.”
There’s no shame in getting something wrong, TW. It happens to everybody, including you. The shame is failing to accept you were wrong when the evidence is clear that you were. I was completely wrong about using herd immunity.
What people seem unable to grasp is that it has nothing to do with whether something is happening or not, which is a very straightforward binary choice, but whether the scale of what’s happening is sufficient for the end to justify the means. It became very obvious very quickly that waiting for herd immunity to address the pandemic wouldn’t prevent a lot of people dying.
However, other things happen over much longer periods of time in which case the only way to determine the scale of a problem is to gather as much data as possible and track it. Nobody denies that climate is changing — it’s what the climate always has done and always will do. It’s the scale of the change that matters and the time periods this is measured over.
My point has always been and remains that if you actually look at the hard data you will find that the changes taking place with climate are hardly different to what you would expect to happen with or without man-made emissions. It’s exactly the same as the number of blood clots you would expect to find in a sample of people who haven’t had the AZ jab versus the number of blood clots you do find in those who have.
The indisputable truth is that the ONLY evidence for the scale of man-made climate change becoming a problem comes from computer models; and the only way to assess whether or not this evidence is reliable comes down to the confidence intervals for the results they produce being presented.
I still look forward to someone — anyone — telling me what these confidence intervals are. Given all the apparent ‘evidence’ for climate change this should be a piece of cake. The truth is, of course, that I know this can’t be answered because these confidence intervals are NEVER revealed; and why might that be, does anyone think?
The truth is that climate change is no longer about science but politics. If you really do take a good look at the hard data you will find what I did when I first did so a number of years ago. The evidence simply does not support the claims — not in terms of whether it’s happening, which it is, but in terms of the scale.
What NI is seeing when he looks around is that things have changed. When you study the hard data, however, you’ll see that this has always been the case, to the extent that it would be more of a surprise if NI hadn’t seen things change at all.