The Problem with Modelling
American Thinker,
by
Norman Rogers
Original Article
Posted By: DVC,
8/4/2023 6:38:13 PM
The book, The Plague of Models: How Computer Modeling Corrupted Environmental, Health, and Safety Regulations by Kenneth Green, is banned by Amazon. [snip] The book is available at Barnes and Noble.
The Plague of Models is a wide-ranging attack on a broad spectrum of government regulation and policy, including alleged cancer-causing substances, air pollution, and doomsday predictions like global warming, acid rain, and the ozone hole. [snip]
Scientists want to generate important-sounding, even sensational results. They want to be famous and enjoy the benefits of higher social status. That desire leads to stretching or breaking the rules
Reply 1 - Posted by:
DVC 8/4/2023 6:58:32 PM (No. 1527540)
FTA:
"Underlying these experiments Is the linear, no-threshold hypothesis. If rats get cancer from a dose 1000 times greater than any human would consume proportional to body weight, then it is assumed that the substance will cause cancer in humans because it is assumed there is no-dose threshold. There often are dose thresholds, but it is difficult to measure them because the effect of low doses, if any, is too small"
The Linear, No Threshold theory has been proven wrong many times, and yet, it is used endlessly to ban various substances which actually, in the low amounts that people are exposed to, do NO harm at all.
This was proven even more amazingly about radiation exposure. No question that higher levels of ionizing radiation cause cancer and birth defects. But an inadvertant "experiment" involving accidental contamination of steel bars used in concrete buildings in Taiwan exposed over 10,000 people to higher than normal levels of radiation for up to 20 years. Were cancers and birth defects increased in those people? No, and in fact, they had dramatically LOWER cancer rates than the cancer rates seen in the general population. Massively lower. Birth defects are already so low that only single digits would be expected in 10,000 people over 20 years, so while they were definitely lower....the numbers are too small to be considered statistically 'proof'.
In any case....LNT theory is largely BOGUS, and yet it is used endlessly to ban substances to "protect us".
And ruin us financially, and CONTROL us.
22 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Jesuslover54 8/4/2023 7:44:55 PM (No. 1527557)
The Club of Rome is right up there with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Doomsday Clock. People love predicting disaster and freak when it happens.
13 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Timber Queen 8/4/2023 8:00:47 PM (No. 1527564)
The individual scientists may or may not be lefties on board with the ultimate goal of controlling the people, but they are easily manipulated into using these fraudulent techniques with simple human desires for money and prestige. The rot in the sciences is one more aspect of the rot in the whole system. The ideals of integrity, personal honor, and love of country are no longer taught or encouraged in our culture. The communists/socialists have been successful in infiltrating our churches, schools, social and fraternal organizations; all those institutions that passed on the traditions, mores and ways of being an American.
We need to rebuild, re-establish America out of the fake hollowed-out country the Lefties have created. Blessedly, God has given us a builder - a man of vision to lead us out of this dysfunction and ruin. I do sincerely believe President Trump is an answer to many decades of many a patriots' prayers. He is a man of his time. He is a great man, and with the prayers and support of a great people he, and we, will be successful.
MAGA - TRUMP 2024 - In God We Trust.
16 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
czechlist 8/4/2023 8:13:43 PM (No. 1527570)
I believe Richard Feynman said something about computer modelling almost aways devolves into paying a game.
Back in the late '70s I was given a Digital PDP8 to support my physics research. I soon abandoned it as I was doing more programming than research
10 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
Strike3 8/4/2023 9:40:19 PM (No. 1527585)
Everybody crows when a computer model or what passes for AI these days gets a correct answer but we never hear about the many failures. The airlines claim that a computer can fly a plane but it's unbelievable how many crashes have been caused by either computer or pilot error. A fatal Tesla crash a few years ago in Florida was caused by a car under the influence of computer programs that left the Interstate and entered a rest area at 70 mph. The two senior citizens asleep in the car never knew what hit them.
6 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
JimBob 8/5/2023 3:40:43 AM (No. 1527658)
For years the Media loved to bombard us with warnings about the 'Military-Industrial Complex'.
President Eisenhower -Ike- made this warning in his farewell address to the Nation.
But the Media NEVER mentions Ike's other Warning that he also made in his farewell address, his warning about the Government-Scientific Complex.
Big Science, funded by the Federal Government.
The bulk of the Big Science, carried out in various Research Institutes and Universities is funded by Federal Government grants through the National Science Foundation and various other agencies. (One such line of research -the COVID-19 research over in Wuhan, China- was recently in the news, although the Lamestreams did their best to cover it up. Funded by Fauchi's NIH, even though it was expressly FORBIDDEN by the Congress, Fauchi funded it anyway, through a third-party cutout, Eco-Health Alliance.)
My point is that the Science is controlled by the Money, which is controlled by the Politicians.
The scientists know full well that if they want their Next 'Research Grant' to be approved, and their career to continue, they have to produce a Report with their Existing Granted Study that will Toe the Government Line and Please the Politicians.
I read story after story about this, particularly in the Climate 'Science' field, over at the 'WattsUpWithThat' website, years ago.
I do not think the situation has improved under the Biden (A,K,A, The HairSniffer) administration.
Garbage In, Garbage Out, Indeed!
5 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 8/5/2023 7:48:30 AM (No. 1527720)
In simple terms it is impossible to extrapolate without having ALL the possible variables and knowing exactly how they all interact with one another. This was interestingly shown during the "Biosphere 2" experiment in Oracle, AZ in the 1980's It turned out that the concrete, used to build the large facility, was actually absorbing CO2 gas, robbing it from vegetation. (from Wikipedia below)
-----
"This concealed the underlying process until an investigation by Jeff Severinghaus and Wallace Broecker of Columbia University's Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory using isotopic analysis showed that carbon dioxide was reacting with exposed concrete inside Biosphere 2 to form calcium carbonate in a process called carbonatation, thereby sequestering both carbon and oxygen."
-----
Biosphere was only a few tens of thousands of cubic meters, so imagine if the system being modelled is the entire Earth biosphere! Missing some process could throw the results off perhaps orders of magnitude. If the science of weather forecasting can't get within 0.001 degree Celsius of accuracy for any given minute on any given day in any given year both past as well as near future then the model isn't accounting for everything. It's becoming obvious that the power wielded by the climate modelling community would cease if the Federal government stopped funding research for a preordained outcome.
4 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
franq 8/5/2023 8:22:33 AM (No. 1527748)
Modeling can prove anything, just like political polls.
And they can measure sea level to within a couple centimeters. Right.
1 person likes this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
chance_232 8/5/2023 10:14:22 AM (No. 1527849)
I have two rules.
Never trust my life with a computer.
Never trust anyone who works for the government....unless the trust is earned.
2 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
NamVet70 8/5/2023 10:26:48 AM (No. 1527868)
GIGO - Garbage In Garbage Out. Models are hypothesis. A hypothesis is only useful to the degree it can be tested and confirmed to agree with observations. When the climate models are compared to historical data they fail. They have been tuned to give the answers the regulators want.
3 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
MickTurn 8/5/2023 11:19:21 AM (No. 1527921)
Modelling: Using Software to create any outcome you want. I have been a Software Developer for over 50 Years.....Any Questions?
2 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
DVC 8/5/2023 11:33:27 AM (No. 1527940)
Thank you, #7. I hadn't heard that particular tidbit about the Biosphere disaster, but it doesn't surprise me in the slightest.
There are MASSIVE unknowns in their pathetically oversimplified, and childishly crude "climate models".
The Earth's biosphere is hundreds of times more complex than we know.
And to harp on a theme that Iearned while doing real engineering modelling for 40+ years, you must know each variable's coefficient. Like the concrete absorbing CO2 - what is the moles of CO2 absorbed per square foot of concrete? This would be the coefficient. And how does the coefficient vary with temperature?
How does that one coefficient vary with sunshine on the concrete? Does sun catalyze the reaction to increase it, or somehow interfere with the absorption?
This is a tiny look at one of the hundreds of thousands of interactions that ARE NOT EVEN CONSIDERED in these childishly oversimplified and ridiculously crude "climate models". They are meaningless.
And the LNT theory for toxicity is WAY wrong, yet is the fundamental basis for all toxicity studies that the EPA uses to ban damned near everything. The dose is the poison, yet EPA doesn't believe or follow this.
ANY dose is forbidden, even when they cannot prove harm.
2 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "DVC"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
Modelling can "prove" absolutely ANYTHING that the model creator intends it to "prove", and seemingly tiny errors or inaccuracies can massively mislead even honest, diligent modelers.