Failure of Coronavirus Computer Modeling Further Discredits Climate Change Hoax

[Anonymous No.11566768]

>What Terrible Coronavirus Models Tell Us About Global Warming Models
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/04/14/nolte-what-terrible-coronavirus-models-tell-us-about-global-warming-models/
Let’s face it, the coronavirus models are terrible. Not just off, but way, way, way off in their predictions of a doomsday scenario that never arrived.

Experts, experts, experts, y’all…

What would America do without her precious experts?

That’s not to say that over 20,000 dead Americans is not a heartbreaking reality. That’s not even to say that parts of the country should not have been shut down. But come on…

We shut the entire country down using the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) models, and in doing so put 17 million (and counting) Americans out of work, shattered 17 million (and counting) lives, and… Well, take a look for yourself below.
For the CNNLOL-impaired… That gigantic hump is the IHME’s April 1 prediction of coronavirus hospitalizations. The smaller humps way, way, waaaay below that are the IMHE’s predictions of coronavirus hospitalizations after they were revised just a few days later on April 5, 7, and 9.

The green line is the true number of hospitalizations, starting with the whole U.S., and into the states.

Here’s the source of those figures.

So why does this matter? And why are we looking at hospitalizations?

Well, remember, the whole reason for shutting down the economy was to ensure our healthcare system was not overloaded. And it should be noted that these expert models are based on full mitigation, based on what did indeed happen, which was basically a full shutdown of the economy by way of a lockdown. And these models are still horribly, terribly wrong.

[Anonymous No.11566770]

This, however, is not an argument about whether we should or should not have shut the country down, or only part of the country down. I have plenty of thoughts on that particular subject, but we’ll leave that for another time. What I want to focus is what is not arguable, and what is not arguable is that we shut the country down based on wildly flawed models.

If you want to argue we still should have shut all or part of the country based on what actually happened, that’s fine… And we might even agree more than disagree, but that’s not the point. What is indisputable is that the models we used to shut down our economy are wildly wrong.

Even if you believe the correct decision was made, that does not change how wildly wrong the coronavirus models were, are, and will almost certainly continue to be. That does not change the fact we shut down our entire economy based on incredibly flawed models.

Which brings me to the models for global cooling global warming climate change or whatever the hell these proven frauds are calling it today.

Now I realize that the people who did the terribly flawed coronavirus models are not the same people who do the modeling for global cooling global warming climate change or whatever the hell these proven frauds are calling it today. But hear me out…

We’re still talking about “experts” our media and government grovel down to without question.

[Anonymous No.11566772]

We’re still talking about models with the goal of destroying our way of life, our prosperity, our standard of living, and our individual freedoms to live our lives in whatever way we choose

We’re still talking about models with the goal of handing a tremendously scary amount of authority and power to a centralized government.

But here’s the thing… The modeling for global cooling global warming climate change or whatever the hell these proven frauds are calling it today should be met with a helluva lot more skepticism than the coronavirus modeling.

The coronavirus modeling was based on something real, on something happening at the time. The experts doing the coronavirus models had all kinds of data on which to make their assumptions. Not just reams and reams of scientific data based on previous pandemics, viruses, and human behavior; but also real-time data on the coronavirus itself from China, Italy, and other countries… And they still blew it. They still got it horribly wrong.

The models being used to predict global cooling global warming climate change or whatever the hell these proven frauds are calling it today, aren’t looking at next week or next month, they are attempting to predict what will happen years from now, decades from now, and they are attempting to predict this based on, well, what exactly…?

The earth is billions of years old. The temperature cycles of the earth could take place over millions of years. We already know the planet warmed all on its own three million years ago, that CO2 levels jumped three million years ago, which is about three million years before the internal combustion engine and plastic bottles and air conditioning.

[Anonymous No.11566775]

So when these proven frauds try to destroy your standard of living and centralize their political power using their global cooling global warming climate change or whatever the hell these proven frauds are calling it today, models, remember how terrible the “expert” coronavirus models are, and remember that the coronavirus “experts” had a whole lot more information to work with for their models than the modelers predicting global cooling global warming climate change or whatever the hell these proven frauds are calling it today.

[Anonymous No.11566803]

>i believe in science
do you believe in the tooth fairy also?

[Anonymous No.11566906]

>>11566768
You sound smart, anon. You should put that intelligence to use and help out at your nearest hospital immediately.

[Anonymous No.11566927]

lol
soience fags really believe in this bullshit

[Anonymous No.11566931]

>>11566927
>Hospitalizations
Okay, how about deaths?

[Anonymous No.11567000]

/pol/ conspiracy tards are fucking ruining this board. Every 1/3 thread on /sci/ is now full of agenda pushing smooth brain arguments full of political subtext. Stop making these thinly veiled threads.

>Failure of Coronavirus Computer Modeling Further Discredits Climate Change Hoax
If that's your argument then this 'failure' of modelling should also discredit economic modelling, particle collision modelling at CERN, network modelling at marketing companies, literally all other modelling that has literally nothing to do with this model. It's telling that the focus is on climate modelling, the only one that politicians have turned into an ugly battleground. If you want to discredit a climate model, do it the only fucking way you can: explain the flaws in the model itself. Stop relying on indirect tactics or rhetoric and fight the models head on.

>We’re still talking about models with the goal of destroying our way of life...
This is obvious but it still requires an explicit mention to cut through the bullshit: Climate change models aren't made with the goal of destroying any way of life, they're made to predict what the future climate of the planet will be. They don't say anything about how to react to the predictions, that's purely in the mind of the people who see the data. Stop politicizing the issue. If you want to show that the climate models are wrong, buy a textbook, educate yourself, and just fucking do it? If you think our reactions to the data should be different, that is fine. But that's not the angle taken by this author.

(1/2)

[Anonymous No.11567004]

>>11567000
>The experts doing the coronavirus models had all kinds of data...
This is the point where the author makes it clear that he lacks scientific literacy. I went to the effort of tracking IHME's preprint from 30th March:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.27.20043752v1
Why? Fucking error bars. The foundation of every fucking scientific argument relies on the fact that the statistical error of any measurements rule out all explanations but one. If your error bars allow alternative explanations then you haven't confirmed anything. Similarly, your predictive models will have error bars based on unknown or imprecise variables. Any scientist knows that modelling processes with exponential growth will naturally lead to larger margins of error, and they will also recognise that very early predictions also have large margins of error. No scientist will have looked at the situation and expected a precise prediction, but the author is not a scientist, he's a journalist for a biased media-corp and he's got a political agenda to push. So he tries to convince us these predictions should be very accurate, just so he can then discredit climate science. Good rhetoric, bad science.

>They still got it horribly wrong
Pic related, the IMHE have been well within their margin of error. The 'prediction' graph the author uses totally lacks these error bars and misrepresents the model's predictions, just so he could find a way of discrediting climate science. This fucking garbage doesn't belong on /sci/.


If you think we shouldn't have locked-down when the models were so imprecise that's fine, but forget your hindsight for a second and put yourself in the shoes of a leading politician with a decision to make. The best data you have has a large margin of error and getting it wrong could cost thousands of lives needlessly and even worse, your career. What do you do?

(2/2)

[Anonymous No.11567007]

>>11567004
and here's the current IMHE predictions with error bars in case you actually give a shit

[Anonymous No.11567092]

>>11567007
>>11567004

Hey anon

I understand that the models can be wrong. That's the problem when fallible people try to do their best, especially when the data is imperfect

But have you considered, that when governments put actions in place to avoid what a model predicts will happen, then what the model predicts probably wont happen

For example, if i see an object is about to fall, i predict it will break if it hits the ground.
I catch the object
The object hasn't hit the ground and broken, therefore was I correct or incorrect in my prediction that it would break?

[Anonymous No.11567105]

>>11567000
>>11567004
> baaaaw pol pol pol baaw pol
Imagine being this much of an asshurt little baby.

[Anonymous No.11567159]

>>11566768
Coronahoax

[Anonymous No.11567257]

>>11567004
those error bars are an absolute joke. It's next to impossible to falsify that trash model.

[Anonymous No.11567383]

>>11567257
>It's next to impossible to falsify that trash model.
Hop off popper's dick and take a look at the Y axis.

[Anonymous No.11567551]

itt I see an OP that genuinely seems to be trying to make sense and internalize what he is reading and observing, and an anon who is earnestly trying to educate him on where he went wrong, all in long, well written posts designed to communicate rather than denigrate. There might be hope for this board yet.

>>11567105
and then there's this asshole.

[Anonymous No.11567556]

>>11566768
Take it to Reddit buddy. We don't argue about politics. sci is for IQ threads and talking shit about ndt

[Anonymous No.11567557]

>>11566768
Global temperatures and the spread of a disease are different things so whatever comparison being made is invalid.

[Anonymous No.11567577]

>>11566768
OP I'll bite. What do you think the real reason for shutting down the economy is?

[Anonymous No.11567615]

>>11566768
You sir are MAD!

Dinosaurs are cold-blooded, they must be reptiles!

[Anonymous No.11567717]

>>11567105
Yes I am mad that /sci/ gets polluted by politically biased shitposting, it's worse than 0.999posting. This case is especially bad since it's trying to caste doubt on scientific expertise as a whole, just for a cheap political argument.

[Anonymous No.11567738]

>>11567717

[Anonymous No.11567739]

okay
if the Thwaites Glacier breaks and water level rises up by 2 feet before the other glaciers starter to break , what do you think the real cause would be other than global warming?

[Anonymous No.11567853]

>>11566768
NGL the computer models aren't that bad. Also the correct decision was made because NEETbux and not working all day is literally the best thing in the world. Hope it goes forever desu.

[Anonymous No.11567922]

>>11567738
You have to be over 18 to post here

[Anonymous No.11567943]

>breitbart
Why did anyone reply to this thread seriously?

[Anonymous No.11568521]

>>11567943
you seem upset

[Anonymous No.11568530]

>>11566768
U mad bro?

20000 too small of a number for you bro?

[Anonymous No.11568782]

[eqn]e^x[/eqn]
>wow computational genius ai superpower matrix intelligence prediction trump big brother computers machine learning block chain robots technology soince has failed us reee breitbart

[Anonymous No.11568850]

[Sage No.11568865]

>>11567943
I haven’t seen any serious replies yet

Of course, how could you have a seriously reply to a schizo thread? It’s pretty difficult due to the incoherence

[Anonymous No.11568899]

it's over

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/worldwide-graphs/

[Anonymous No.11569392]

>>11568899

[Anonymous No.11569477]

>>11566768
>Don't use the current models you have to solve potential issues because they might be overstated. Rather you should wait till they actually to become a problem to do something
What?

[Anonymous No.11569590]

>>11566906
Hospitals are overstaffed right now because all the elective treatments have been put on hold.

[Anonymous No.11569595]

>>11567007
>it's going to be somewhere between 20k and 200k
lmao

[Anonymous No.11569798]

>>11569595
on the one hand, pretty fucking useless. on the other hand, a 1 order of magnitude spread on an exponential model is not bad at all as far as models go. At least the graph was honest and plotted it on a linear scale.

[Anonymous No.11569811]

>ITT

[Anonymous No.11569815]

>>11567943
American hands made the OP

[Anonymous No.11569891]

>>11566768
sure it does, sweetie
>another incel retard

[Anonymous No.11569896]

>>11566927
>assumes TN took care of the sick
LOL

[Anonymous No.11570200]

>soience

[Anonymous No.11570207]

>>11570200
evidence is a thing

[Anonymous No.11570211]

>>11566768
Would you personally fund experiment, that would finally proof or disproof change of solubility affected by photons on which shit you use to communicate that there's fucking wave there?

[Anonymous No.11570241]

>>11570200
I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE

[Anonymous No.11570348]

>>11570241
>weight
fuck off back to >>>/pol/

[Anonymous No.11570358]

>>11570241
if you have sources I'll support your argument

[Anonymous No.11570595]

>>11567105
Thankyou for your valuable and enlightening contribution here.

[Anonymous No.11570611]

In the lead up to the 2020 election Russian agents have started a campaign of misinformation on the internet, including coming to 4chan and making threads like this to undermine Western trust in their politicians and to further the anti-AGW, anti-LGBT, sexist, and racist ideas of the Russian government.

Prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.11570618]

>>11570611
the last 3 things make your government stronger, russians are pushing pro LGBT, pro female, pro immigration because those things make your country implode.

[Anonymous No.11570662]

>>11566768
I told the morons here numerous times all of the climate change hoax is based on bullshit computer mode have never been right but the people here are complete morons that don't understand science at in the slightest all the do is appeal to authority to the top jewgle search result. This place is a joke and the people here some of the biggest pseud donkeys you will ever come across. Whatever the /sci/ consensus is the opposite will always be true, live by this ethos and you will make it fren

[Anonymous No.11570677]

>>11568850
>Human contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere
>Ignores that natural sinks absorb more CO2 than natural sources emit, while humans don't.

>CO2 lags temperature by 800-2000 years
Of course it does, if orbital eccentricity causes insolation to increase, then warming starts the feedback loop between warming and CO2 evaporating from the oceans. The climate has never had humans dump massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, thus we have never seen CO2 start to increase before temperature, until now! Do you think climatologists don't already know this? Do you not realize that without this feedback loop you cannot explain the Milankovich cycle? No of course not, you have no idea what your idiotic memes are even implying.

>The models are wrong
Actually the data is wrong. Several sources of error were discovered in the satellite techniques since 2009 and they are now much more in line with the instrumental data. To see how well the IPCC is doing I suggest you look at current updates:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/

>Ice core samples indicate warm periods long before the Industrial Revolution
Local samples, not indicative of a global average temperature.

And last but not least another fraudulent graph, using flawed, cherrypicked data and not even showing surface temperature.

[Anonymous No.11570702]

>>11570662
> told the morons here numerous times all of the climate change hoax is based on bullshit computer mode have never been right
Wrong.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/

[Anonymous No.11570707]

>>11567105
Like you you mean. LOL, owned.

[Anonymous No.11571244]

>>11570207
Evidence for the decay of corpses was never lacking.

[Anonymous No.11571245]

>>11567004
>waah waah error bars from zero to infinity and beyond

[Anonymous No.11571250]

>>11570611
>to undermine Western trust in their politicians
You can't undermine something that doesn't exist in the first place lad.

[Anonymous No.11571302]

>>11570358
only retards need sources, geniuses trust their anon bros

[Anonymous No.11571476]

>>11567007
Wow it's like virology is a much more unpredictable field and therefore subject to a higher margin of error, insane

[Anonymous No.11571480]

>>11567738
That's what you reply when you don't have a rebuttal, now scurry on back to /pol

[Anonymous No.11571487]

>>11568850
Most of these studies have been peer reviewed as statistical manipulation of the data by setting bad parameters, aka looking only for evidence that supports your argument

[Anonymous No.11571500]

>>11570662
>Claims the only peer reviewed scientific studies to be wrong based on a basic Yahoo search
>Also reees about "Jews and their google"
Show me your peer reviewed data, oh wait you don't have any that's right

[Anonymous No.11572490]

>>11567257
>>11571245
If you can come up with a model with a prediction that's more accurate with a smaller margin of error, given the data at that time, go ahead
Predicting how exponential growth will materialize is like this, maybe you'll fell more comfortable with an exact prediction from astrology or tea leaves?

[Anonymous No.11572886]

>>11569811
based and schizopilled
>he doesn't know about coronavirus actually being started by the mole children to undermine the satanic pedo cult so they can win their freedom

[Anonymous No.11573475]

>>11569811
>the government rich off of a world spanning economy sabotages said global economy to...