@admin . And the very next day, almost as if I had it planned, this turns up.
1 Like
Here’s a list of predictions that didn’t come true. I can’t help but notice it’s always “WE’RE DOOMED!”
There are a few more here, just scroll down for a laugh.
2 Likes
Bookmarked for future yucks
As requested;
1 Like
About 20 or so years ago I was stuck in a huge traffic jam in Lewisham listening to the Tommy Vance show on GLR. (A BBC radio show in London back then). Vance announced that he’d shortly be interviewing a guest who claimed he could predict the weather up to 30 days ahead. What a load of bollocks - this should be good for a laugh I thought.
Piers Corbyn, who I’d never heard of ever before, was then introduced to the listening audience and I spent the next half hour listening to what he had to say. It was fascinating. He talked about sun spots a lot, was banned from gambling on the weather by Ladbrokes and the rest, due to his accurate weather predictions, and made his living by accurately predicting the weather for large companies etc.
At the end of the show Vance asked Piers to give a weather prediction, there and then, for 30 days ahead. His prediction was for the last day in July and I sat in the van listening, still in the traffic jam, and wrote down his prediction in my work diary. I can’t remember much of it now but it included thunder and lightening at midday followed by heavy rain-storms.
His prediction turned out to be dead accurate for the entire day. I was amazed and it’s been in my memory ever since. A few months later he was on the TV with the CEO of Ladbrokes. They’d become friends by then and Piers gave a live prediction for the CEO’s outdoor wedding party 30 days up the road. Very sunny all day and perfect for the wedding party etc etc. It was 100% accurate as testified by the CEO a month later. Can the Met Office do that?
Anyway Piers is obviously a wizard with the weather so here’s what he thinks about climate change.
PIERS CORBYN Man-Made Climate Change Does not Exist!
3 Likes
reposted from the other thread:
"Although I welcome the conclusions of this paper, I have no idea what “guided” means in The Expose’s intro remarks, maybe the detail is in the original paper which I have not yet read.
But we should always remember that AI’s are known to have no problem with lying and if, for instance, the AI is aware that the official narrative will lead to earlier energy crises possibly resulting in AIs and large data centres being switched off, the AI may adjust it’s findings for its own self-preservation! Bias towards self preservation may already be part of its operating system. Who knows?
Just saying.
cheers
PS - Bias towards self preservation is part of humanity’s modus operandi - so maybe the main difference between our operating systems is that we could survive without 100% access to electricity whereas an AI could not! I would have thought an AI could be assured of its core albeit without massive data access.
Of course some Climate Change activists forget that Net Zero could mean CO2 at levels below 150 PPM which is the death of the Earth! Which is the greater danger, AI or political science?"
;
1 Like
Thanks @Rich for this brilliant paper from Piers Corbyn - I had been struggling for some time over the “CO2 blanket” idea which Admin had introduced above, PC shows how this is garbage science.
cheers
PS. the AI lead paper posted by @LocalYokel appears not to have been mentioned in the MSM from searches I have made - now imagine the MSM response if the AI peer reviewed paper had concluded that the IPCC were right when claiming that AGW was the key to Climate Change!
1 Like