The whole global warming hysteria is ultimately based on mathematical models.

Create a series of equations and algorithms that you think is a reasonable representation of the global climate system, and then see what happens when you increase the level of CO2 in your model. If it shows catastrophe, publish and await the accolades. If it doesn't...well no one cares. You definitely won't be published.

The same process is used for the economy for a very long time, but remains profoundly inaccurate despite a century's refinement.

The problems for both is that these are unbelievable complex systems that cannot be reduced to a few equations or even a few thousand equations.

Additionally, the climate is only vaguely understood and therefore the equations used to represent some aspect of the climate might be spectacularly wrong. (Vaguely understood?. Only this week it was realised that the deep Pacific Ocean is very much colder than thought and getting colder, caused, it seems, by the slow reaction to the Little Ice age 400 years ago).

I think the most important take is that, as climate models have become more sophisticated and better represent the real climate system, the forecast temperature rises have become less scary. There was a time when models didn't and couldn't represent clouds in their calculations. Criticism forced a major effort to better model clouds and the result was that predictions of the future temperature increases fell.

There is a very important number in climate science called ECS: Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. That is the amount of expected change in temperatures for a doubling of CO2, all else being held constant. Its the starting point for all predictions and all modellers have to tell their systems what ECS to use. As the science has improved, the value of the ECS has declined. Each new discovery has caused a decline in this core number. Each new discovery WILL caused a decline in this core number.

As the science improves, the scare recedes. Not that you'd know that from the headlines

Another illusion is we need to trash the economy to address manmade climate change. The answer has always been carbon-free, cheaper than coal energy.

Albeit, we could still do it with coal by #1 eliminating most of the current transmission and distribution losses. And consequently, reduce emissions per KwH by 75%.

#2 the way to do that is, first wash, then cook the coal, to extract the methane. Then pipe it underground to the end users. Where ceramic fuel cells will convert it to electricity and free hot water.

Because the conversion is a chemical process not combustion per se, The exhaust product is mostly pristine water vapour.

Nowhere in this system are vulnerable transmission towers or expensive transformers. and possibly harmful magnetic feilds. And given the capacity to compress and store, no blackouts.

Moreover given the elimination of transmission and distribution losses, prices a quarter of what we pay today, given we pay for those same losses with each power bill!

The waste product of the cooking, possibly a useful source of carbon to support a highly profitable manmade graphene industry.
Alan B.

This excellent article reminds us, and verifies that the climate fraud is baseless.
The fraud promoter, Allan B, reminds us of his baseless support for the fraud, and even has the gall to use the term “denier”, when he is well aware, as the article confirms, that there is no science to deny. There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, is there, Alan?
Is your support for the fraud based on ignorance or dishonesty, Allan

Leo lane, are you still beating your wife, is a question that assumes one of two outcomes, #1 you still beat your wife. #2 you once beat your wife. It's a verbal, as is your question, which quite knowingly and deliberately, impugns my integrity.

Climate change is real and just as real as the unprecedented enduring droughts that have beset the Australian landscape along with heatwaves and firestorms incomparable in living memory. When unable to deny the science. Which includes for the first time in living memory an ice-free summer coastline of Alaska and a navigable northwest passage, extreme weather events and ice melts, all occurring during a waning phase of the sun.

Leo and co just shoot the messenger. Even as I offer a solution that still, includes their beloved coal! And a consequently massively improved economy.

I remember the seventies and driving long distance in non-air-conditioned cars or living in non-air-conditioned houses.

Today more and more nations are finding, that surviving in the 21st century, includes mandatory air conditioning in homes, offices, shops, schools and factories, and where some occupations will need to be conducted under light and spray fans at night!

That more and more will be displaced by encroaching desertification. Fortunately, all occurring during a waning phase of the sun! Imagine how much worse it will be when it returns to a waxing phase and the joint really begins to heat up!?

Hope you and yours are still around when that occurs as part of natural cyclical events Leo. And as you and your's scream, why didn't somebody tell us!?
Alan B.

Hi, Allan B, thanks for your reminder that there is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
You have a solution to a problem which the article has shown does not exist.
You have no science to support your fraud, do you Allan?Apparently it is supported by dishonesty, since you have no science,other than the article, which you fail to comprehend.

The whole basis of this article is wrong. It ignores the most important facts;
• The observed temperature has risen and is still rising
• Greenhouse gases (those which absorb and reradiate infra red) warm the planet
• Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have risen due to human activity
• A breakdown of the long established relationship between temperature and solar activity has been observed.

From the above we can tell that anthropogenic climate change is real. And we can see that it is a problem because:
• Humans (as well as ecosystems) have adapted to existing climates. Changing climates will inevitably overwhelm infrastructure not designed for the new conditions.
• The hotter conditions will cause sea levels to rise.
• There's a danger of some parts of the world becoming uninhabitable.
It is these qualitative effects, not the modelling, that the need for action is based on.

Mathematical modelling is useful because it enables us to quantify the effects. It gives us some idea of how serious the problems are and how we should prioritise responses. The models are improving, and although they're still far from perfect, they're far from useless either.