An interesting article in 'Nature' magazine....
http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-01192-2

Essentially what its saying is that there are too many climate "hot models" being used by the climate community and that this misrepresents the real world situation. "Hot models" are models of future warming that yield results that are significantly hotter than the norm. These models, when checked against the recent past, generally show warming a higher levels than actually occurred. For example, if you ask these models to start in 1970 they will show the world warming faster than it actually did ie they are wrong.

Yet they are still used by climate scientists who try to offset the error by averaging all the models. But if you average a set of models, some of which are "hot", then the resulting average is "hot" also.

The Nature article is trying to get climate scientists to better represent the future and tone down the 'sky is falling' rhetoric.

We all know Paul's historic knowledge is sh!thouse. Thus he asserts.." the Bengal famine of 1943 was instigated by the British government of Winston Churchill. "

That there was a famine is true. That it was instigated by Churchill is rubbish.

Paul probably doesn't realise it, but there was a war going on in 1943....it was in all the papers! Because of the war, there were millions of refugees fleeing the tender mercies of the Japanese army and ending up in India. Many more mouths to feed at a time when all efforts were directed at trying to avoid a Japanese invasion of India. Additionally, the Japanese were torpedoing shipping in the Bay of Bengal and bombing Calcutta.

Add to that, a natural disaster hit India at that same time. An outbreak of rice fungal disease was followed by a cyclone, and three storm surges that killed thousands and spread the fungal disease and malaria.

To be sure, if the British weren't pre-occupied fighting the Japanese they might have been able to handle all this with minimal lost lives. But, did I mention it, there was a war on.

Paul laughingly suggests that the British were shipping food out of India. That's rubbish and is just a case of Paul's inner Marxist speaking. They might not have been importing food in the quantities required (did I mention there was a war on) but they definitely weren't exporting food.

Strangely, Paul seems anxious to talk about this famine. But whenever I mention the proven communist caused famine in Ukraine in 1930, Paul suddenly realises he has an urgent appointment elsewhere and exits the thread.

Thanks mhaze I couldn't be bothered.

mhaze,

It would be interesting to discuss empire, colonialism
and famine from a comparative historical perspective
in regards to the Bengal, Ukrainian, and Irish famines.

http://bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-53405121

It appears that the policies of Sir Winston Churchill and
his Cabinet did contribute to the Bengal famine.

nhaze, you certainly are a tosser, I said "war measure" as it has been shown before your comprehension is sh!those. A Pommy Apologist. The Bengsl Famine was all down to the British.

Hassy, still calling for atomic bombs to be dropped on Pakistan, a small bomb dropped on YOU would go well.

Mhaze- I remember someone wrote an article about Mathematicians tend to believe the Maths of the model whereas other researchers include a feedback loop to check for reasonableness. As always "the weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness".

http://www.cantorsparadise.com/richard-feynman-on-the-differences-between-mathematics-and-physics-c0847e8a3d75

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science/