Climate computer games have predicted rapid, dangerous global warming for the past 45 years, as our planet had mild, harmless global warming.
The computer games have not been getting more accurate.
By consistently predicting far too much global warming, in my opinion, the computer games are mainly intended to scare people.
Predicting double the actual rate of global warming (on average) does that.
The following article offers one explanation of why climate computer games make wrong predictions.
It will be ignored by the government bureaucrat science "consensus".
Just like they bury the Russian INM climate model predictions within an average of dozens of models.
Even though INM is the only model "in the ballpark" of being accurate (by design, or by chance).
From the government bureaucrat scientist point of view:
They were hired to make scary climate predictions, and they are doing what they are being paid to do.
They have the (low) integrity previously seen in scientists paid by cigarette companies to declare that cigarette smoking was safe.
If
accurate predictions were the primary goal, model output (the rate of
global average temperature rise) could be reduced by 50%, and then the
average model would at least appear to be accurate.
That fudge factor would take a few minutes.
But it is not done.
So every year, for about 45 years, we get the same scary, and always wrong, projections, as we got in the prior year.
They are not models of climate change on this planet.
Climate computer games predict whatever the owners and programmers want predicted.
And they obviously do not want accurate predictions of mild, harmless global warming.
Which is exactly what our planet has had since the mid-1970s -- 45 years ago.
I lived though those 45 years of mild, harmless warming, and enjoyed them.
They were also 45 years of computer games predicting rapid, dangerous warming.
And I did not enjoy their climate scaremongering and the increasing hysteria of the leftist climate alarmists.
So that's why I call the so-called models "computer games".
If you start with two to three dozen models, and run three different simulations with each model, you can have over 100 simulations / projections / predictions (aka malarkey).
One or two of the 100+ simulations is likely to appear "in the ballpark" of accurate.
Of course I have a broken watch at home that is also "in the ballpark" of accurate ... that broken watch is perfectly accurate twice a day ... still more accurate than any climate computer game.
But unlike my broken watch, climate computer games have a political purpose.
The computer games are effective props to support the coming climate crisis hoax.
That hoax is intended to scare people.
People in fear turn to their government, and ask for help.
Which is exactly what leftist politicians want to hear.
They will never let a crisis, real or imaginary, "go to waste".
A crisis gives politicians permission to virtue signal, seize more power over the private sector, and spend lots of money on that "crisis" (a real or imaginary crisis).
Which is exactly what leftists have always wanted to do, for the past 100 years.
The coming climate crisis hoax is a leftist strategy to get the political power they have always wanted ... to micromanage our lives.
Rule by competent "experts" in their goal.
In my view, that's rule by incompetent, power hungry government bureaucrats.
And I don't want that.
As a libertarian, since 1973, I want minimum government, and maximum personal freedom.
We are getting the opposite.
The imaginary coming climate crisis, with its climate computer games, is a large part of the problem.
