I read this whole article and most of it went over my head.  So then why would I want to post an article I can barely understand?

Well, what stands out is the extreme frailty of computer modelling.  This Essex article centres around the very dubious nature of climate modelling, but the same critique applies to the endless evolution scenarios.

All we have is the real world, real, tangible, present-day data.  We’ve been indoctrinated so much from our entrance into this life that we got to our present form via the tortuous, crude, inefficient, process of goo to you, by way of the zoo.  First there was nothing, and then IT (the nothing) exploded.  And somehow this chaotic mess, (against anything ever seen by any human being) this explosion arranged itself into a vast and orderly universe.  After vast ages, somewhere, somehow, life sprang into being, from non-life, (contrary to all known laws of science).

Keeping before us the demand made by evolutionists that we cannot allow a divine foot in the door, when discussing origins, look hard at the just-so stories peddled by the religious folk over on the ‘no God allowed’ side and try to count the miracles needed to bolster the fables disguised as history and science.

So this non-life that just steps out on the stage of life,…… just does, don’t question it, this little tiny life, just conveniently also had the, you know, simple ability to replicate itself, because there wasn’t quite a perfectly suited mate on hand yet,…… IT being the solo miracle to date, so it had to start a family by abiogenesis.

Anyway this is a long, long tale, stretching over vast long years, and you can read all about it, – in just about any nature book out there, and the media, and the schools will give you all the stories you can absorb.  Now of course Christianity is founded on Christ, God Incarnate, and His creation ex nihilo, is clearly and solidly miraculous, but keep in mind that evolution CLAIMS to be pure materialism.  They are science, we are religion.  So start counting the miracles they invoke to bolster their false god, ……. if you can count that high.  And those millions and billions of years that just spring onto the pages of their ‘science’, simply by the invocation of their high priests. 

Speaking of vast, well, vast amounts of time and money and energy have been spent to keep the fantasy afloat, because if you just allowed people to use their God-given faculties, if you just let them ponder the fable versus the real-life facts all around them, they would come to a very different conclusion.  Neither the creationist, or the evolutionist were there, In The Beginning.  Both are faith positions.  All of life, in its profound complexity, order, utility and beauty points us to the divine Lifegiver.  The atheist makes up fables, invokes qazillion miracles, declares them to have occurred vast ages beyond our reach, based on nothing.  No computer, no chemist can accurately assign those so easily created ages.  Present day processes cannot be extrapolated backward to arrive at the deep time evolutionist need.  Time, unimaginably long times ago beyond all scrutiny is the miracle needed for the story of evolution.  But it is all a fabrication.

The fable is a tool to push God the Creator off His throne, out of His creation, out of the hearts and minds and souls of His creatures,……or at least, that is the goal.  And so the propaganda machines churn out mega resources to keep humanity dull, deadened to the One who calls them to live in the light of His presence, and to come to the only One who lifts fallen humanity up to Himself.

Most who accept that evolution is accurate are not evil, deceptive people.  The brain-washing starts really early in life and is sustained by money and power.  But some certainly are deceivers and will face the Judge of all the earth when they die, unless they repent of these lies.

Because real data simply does not authenticate the fairy-tales of bacteria to Biologist, or nothing to Nobleman, or frog to Furher, there is also a desperate search to prove that life came to earth from somewhere out there in space, pan-spermia.  And billions are spent on that desperate search to prove it could have happened that way, indeed it MUST have happened that way, because real science, at every point thwarts the desperate attempts to prove the bogus claims that we are the result of billion upon billions of accidental mutations, that always advanced life upward.  Real data just will not cooperate with that deception.

Evolution does not happen today, and it did not happen in the past.  We see change within species, change that is embedded within the DNA of each living things.  We see mutations that cause horizontal change, at best, but never ever a change that leads to genetic improvement and an altered, upward change passed on to offspring, so they can set off on a new track to a higher, improved species.

We are fearfully and wonderfully made, two eyes, two ears, two legs, two arms.  ANY mutation that causes a deviation from our complexity and utility is clearly seen to be unfortunate.  Few of us would wish we’d been born with either more or less eyes, ears, nose, arms,  yet we have been brow-beaten by crafty handlers in the Emperor’s court to believe the balance, the beauty, the perfection seen in myriad life forms just got here by bumbling, clumsy accidents…… Remember ‘WE CANNOT ALLOW A DIVINE FOOT IN THE DOOR,  of this divine creation.

Emperor Evolution has no clothes, and despite the mantra that anyone with a brain won’t doubt the truth of his excellent clothing, there are a lot of courageous men and women who speak and write what their research reveals.  Sometimes those brave folk pay a steep price for daring to say the obvious. The little boy in the fable spoke the truth because he was too little to have had his five senses re-programmed, but adults risk losing their university positions, high-profile jobs, the loss of research grants, the derision of their peers.   Who among us has the courage to see that grim future and still say, “The Emperor has no clothes”?

The following article may make your head ache, unless you’re either a math or computer genius.  But it is a good reminder that the world of computer modelling is ‘garbage in, – garbage out’.  Computer modelling cannot predict weather or climate even a hundred years into the future, and computers cannot take present-day measurements and extrapolate billions of years into the past.

The whole deceptive story of ‘our evolutionary ascent’ is based on feeding data from our real and present world into modelling that has as its RULING PARADIGM, that evolution is a fact.  So all measurements, all extrapolations must conform to that one iron rule.  

Emperor Evolution must rule, and all facts, doubts, contradictions must be forced to conform to that inviolable paradigm.

So here’s:   Save Willie!  – Christopher Essex – Financial Post

Beheading, war crimes, prison, death threats. Perhaps you think I’m talking about IS. No, it’s just the routine hyperbolic language of media climate activism, and the minds of our cultural overlords. Next December policymakers will try again to save the world from what they don’t understand by proposing policy on something else, which won’t work anyway.

In anticipation, climate effusions grow. The great cultural climate PR machine slowly stretches its enormously well funded muscles, warming up for another hysterical run at utopia. Its weird unphysical world has certified carbon-free sugar, oxygen-free carbon dioxide (i.e. carbon) and the alleged carbon in glass causing interiors of cars to be warm on sunny days. Unfortunately the dense nonsense of the previous sentence won’t send the appropriate clown-time signals that it should.

Every debate has boundaries; beyond them lies other subjects. Climate debates are unique: Their boundaries exclude their own subject. Few of the elites, journalists, or academics come close to actually discussing climate. Nearly all of them try to address physics, chemistry, computer science, and mathematics by talking anthropology instead. Try discussing anything useful with such rules.

Not everyone is an expert, but surely 25 years is time enough for any intelligent layman to advance beyond stupid clichés about greenhouses and temperature. Greenhouses don’t work by the greenhouse effect. The difference involves differential equations, and the deepest unsolved problems of modern science. Greenhouses are certain; the atmosphere and oceans aren’t. The mathematics is different; the physics is different.

The mathematics of the non-greenhouse goes to the Clay Millennium Problems, which are among the most fundamental unsolved problems in mathematics. Not just one, but two of seven pertain. Solving the Navier Stokes equations, which govern the movements of air and water, and the other (P-NP) is about using computers for such complex things.

That’s $2-million in prize money, and maybe a Fields medal or two, if you get them both. But it doesn’t stop there! There’s the closure problem of turbulence in fluids: Not only can’t we determine the flow in a pipe from first principles, we can’t even get the lowest order statistic, after 150 years of trying. There is no Clay prize, but instant fame awaits you. Good luck.

What about computers? Computers don’t have enough numbers (i.e. finite representation). The mathematics is too big to fit. Consequently computer arithmetic is different: garbage out even without garbage in. You must crack differential equations like eggs to put them onto computers. The shattered remains are an approximation, but with different physics.

They don’t usually conserve things like energy! Such differences tell when integrated over long times (i.e. climate). If you invent a computer scheme that conserves all the correct things, the computer’s solution amounts to an exact solution of the original equation. If you figure out how to do that for the infinite number of conserved quantities expected for Navier Stokes, you win $1-million!

Finite representation means that the smashed equations must be hung on a grid. Think of pixels on a computer screen. Between grid points there is nothing. Grid spacings must be smaller than anything you hope to see. Everything else is lost. Proper computation calls for spacings to be smaller than all of the wiggles in the equation’s solution. But the enormous scales and complexity in climate mean that the wiggles are much smaller than grid spacings.

Not even thunderstorms show up with model resolutions of hundreds of kilometers! If you put together a grid that could capture all turbulence, you’d need a spacing of about 1 mm—air’s Kolmogorov cutoff. On modern computers, a proper computation of a 10-year forecast for the atmosphere and oceans, the calculation would take in excess of the age of the Universe, squared. The climate problem is just way too big, and computers are way too slow to do proper computation. Empiricism (i.e. fakery) is the only way forward. There is no human fault here. That’s the best humans can do. It’s no secret. Model controversy is largely among people ignorant of what model pioneers openly stated.

Models can be empirically adjusted to approximate observations. However you cannot adjust for conditions we haven’t encountered yet, but that is precisely what climate change is: conditions that we haven’t encountered yet. So, for climate change, empiricism fails. Only extrapolation remains, making models more caricature than approximation. But there is an even bigger issue. Smashed nonlinear equations, drooping from grid points, fed faux physics, integrated for extreme long times, are notoriously computationally unstable.

There has been a long struggle to get these algorithms to settle down and stop wandering off into fantasyland. Modern versions are so stable that nothing happens unless pushed from the outside. Models have no natural variability over long times. Is this a bug or a feature? Some modelers believe the latter. Thus they contend that climate is a boundary value problem, as startup conditions no longer matter. If true, an observer living on climate timescales would experience nothing analogous to weather? Every moment would be like the last.

But what if there is “climate weather?” Current conventions would fail, because they presume all climate change is pushed from the outside. But if not, reacting dynamically to pushing makes things very different. Can we tell the difference between internal and external change? No. Climate sensitivity and attribution become problematic. There’s no way to settle this empirically. We don’t live long enough. Theoretically, things are worse. Many scientists believe that fresh thinking is needed.

Fresh thinking is inherently unorthodox. Small minds, unenlightened politicians, and activists do not understand the importance of unorthodox thinking to science, and ultimately to everyone. Research must transcend the zeitgeist. Therefore it’s forever in trouble. Scientists are political targets on climate.

Those that speak out must endure vexatious, eristic tactics rather than scientific reasoning in matters from publication, to funding, to jobs. For example, my friend Dr. Willie Soon is under assault from activist groups. An army of human bots has been released to get him fired from Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics. He’s shared scientist’s skepticism publicly. Betraying acute ignorance, media pound him with silly hit pieces. Some perpetrators believe they fight for science, but they could not be more antiscientific, if not fascistic.   (red emphasis is mine – Gerda)

If there’s any chance at a rational policy on climate, two things must happen. First, intelligent laymen must take back the debate, by pushing currently out-of-bounds science back onto center stage. They must stop letting “experts” do their thinking for them. Second, political attacks on scientists must be stopped. Those must be pushed out of bounds. Let’s begin by saving Willie!

Christopher Essex, Chairman, Permanent Monitoring Panel on Climate, World Federation of Scientists and Professor of Applied Mathematics, University of Western Ontario

(Thought I would look up ‘eristic’…

  1. 1
    of or characterized by debate or argument.
  1. 1
    a person given to debate or argument.)