Uploaded February 2017 | Updated September 2026, 1 hour ago
"...NOT JUST BAD BUT LOUSY COMPUTER MODELS says William Briggs, statistician, a speaker at the 10th annual conference on climate change, June 11-12, 2015. He is the author of UNCERTAINTY: THE SOUL OF MODELING, PROBABILITY & STATISTICS and other books. He says "The models used to make predictions are based on their ['global warming'] theory, and those projections they have made for the past two decades are not just bad but are lousy. They're terrible. And it used to be a fundamental precept of science that when you have model that makes such lousy predictions, you knew that they theory that underlies it was wrong. And so why arent scientists acknowledging this? They know exactly what I know, but they're not saying anything, and why? Because they don't want to be attacked. They don't want to face the kind of nonsense that we have to face. We have some senators wanting to prosecute us under the RICO Act. For what? I get not a penny from anybody, no oil company, nothing like this. I'm an independent scientist. I do this out of my own dime. And if anything, it costs me money because I've been denied jobs; I'm called a 'denier'; no one wants to work with people like me. It's nonsense. But the scientists know what I know. If they all spoke out, even if just a fraction of them spoke out, had the guts to speak out, this stuff would end, and shortly.
It's the education system as a whole. We're not taught to think about answers; they want to talk instead about how you 'feel' about certain subjects: give me your 'reaction' to that; don't tell me how you think, don't tell me how you reasoned to get to this [conclusion], tell me how you 'feel'. They're trying to inculcate the right 'feelings'. And that's the problem. Instead of facts, we have feelings.
The 'need to believe' – the level of belief about global warming depends on who you're talking to. There is a set of environmentalist true believers, and these people need to believe the solution to 'global warming'. To them it's sort of axiomatic that mankind is a pest, a cancer on the planet, some of them say – and these people don't really care so much about 'global warming,' I think. Just as they didn't care so much about 'global cooling' in the '70s, but what they do care about is people, they think there are too many people. They don't like what people are doing; they think that people use up too many resources, when in fact it's the opposite; it's the other way around. The world population was growing until the 1900s at a fairly slow pace and it really took off after that because of improvements in technology and agriculture primarily, and in shipping food and getting food to more people because of the internal combustion engine. Once the internal combustion engine and fossil fuel were able to be utilized, all of a sudden people had more food, and this led to an increase in population because people weren't dying so young any more. And that's what's really the cause right now of ann increasing population; people are not dying at the same rates; infant mortality rate has dramatically lowered; and of course people are living longer because of medical technology – all because of our use of fossil fuels...so the environmentalist have it backwards. A lot of people are saying [for example] that Africans are having a lot of kids. But they're having a lot of kids because they're still working out in the fields; these people are farming, they're herders and things like this; they need to have the human muscle that goes along with this; if we took that away from them by sort of enforced policies of limited numbers of children and so forth, we'd be plunging them back into poverty. If we really cared about poor people, we'd try to make sure they're as developed as we were. This is the true believer environmentalists; they think there are too many people. What leads to more population is having less. The [contemporary] culture as a whole is anti-human for some reason...the people who are doing well – our society in particular – it's we who say when we get married young and so forth, 'we can't afford children'. Well, it's the very poor people who can 'afford' plenty of them. So we have our priorities backwards. And that needs to be – that's nothing that government can do; I mean, this is a cultural thing; this is a religious, philosophical, spiritual thing...." yoryevrah
"...NOT JUST BAD BUT LOUSY COMPUTER MODELS says William Briggs, statistician, a speaker at the 10th annual conference on climate change, June 11-12, 2015. He is the author of UNCERTAINTY: THE SOUL OF MODELING, PROBABILITY & STATISTICS and other books. He says "The models used to make predictions are based on their ['global warming'] theory, and those projections they have made for the past two decades are not just bad but are lousy. They're terrible. And it used to be a fundamental precept of science that when you have model that makes such lousy predictions, you knew that they theory that underlies it was wrong. And so why arent scientists acknowledging this? They know exactly what I know, but they're not saying anything, and why? Because they don't want to be attacked. They don't want to face the kind of nonsense that we have to face. We have some senators wanting to prosecute us under the RICO Act. For what? I get not a penny from anybody, no oil company, nothing like this. I'm an independent scientist. I do this out of my own dime. And if anything, it costs me money because I've been denied jobs; I'm called a 'denier'; no one wants to work with people like me. It's nonsense. But the scientists know what I know. If they all spoke out, even if just a fraction of them spoke out, had the guts to speak out, this stuff would end, and shortly.
It's the education system as a whole. We're not taught to think about answers; they want to talk instead about how you 'feel' about certain subjects: give me your 'reaction' to that; don't tell me how you think, don't tell me how you reasoned to get to this [conclusion], tell me how you 'feel'. They're trying to inculcate the right 'feelings'. And that's the problem. Instead of facts, we have feelings.
The 'need to believe' – the level of belief about global warming depends on who you're talking to. There is a set of environmentalist true believers, and these people need to believe the solution to 'global warming'. To them it's sort of axiomatic that mankind is a pest, a cancer on the planet, some of them say – and these people don't really care so much about 'global warming,' I think. Just as they didn't care so much about 'global cooling' in the '70s, but what they do care about is people, they think there are too many people. They don't like what people are doing; they think that people use up too many resources, when in fact it's the opposite; it's the other way around. The world population was growing until the 1900s at a fairly slow pace and it really took off after that because of improvements in technology and agriculture primarily, and in shipping food and getting food to more people because of the internal combustion engine. Once the internal combustion engine and fossil fuel were able to be utilized, all of a sudden people had more food, and this led to an increase in population because people weren't dying so young any more. And that's what's really the cause right now of ann increasing population; people are not dying at the same rates; infant mortality rate has dramatically lowered; and of course people are living longer because of medical technology – all because of our use of fossil fuels...so the environmentalist have it backwards. A lot of people are saying [for example] that Africans are having a lot of kids. But they're having a lot of kids because they're still working out in the fields; these people are farming, they're herders and things like this; they need to have the human muscle that goes along with this; if we took that away from them by sort of enforced policies of limited numbers of children and so forth, we'd be plunging them back into poverty. If we really cared about poor people, we'd try to make sure they're as developed as we were. This is the true believer environmentalists; they think there are too many people. What leads to more population is having less. The [contemporary] culture as a whole is anti-human for some reason...the people who are doing well – our society in particular – it's we who say when we get married young and so forth, 'we can't afford children'. Well, it's the very poor people who can 'afford' plenty of them. So we have our priorities backwards. And that needs to be – that's nothing that government can do; I mean, this is a cultural thing; this is a religious, philosophical, spiritual thing...." yoryevrah
