It’s happening. The Dutch Regime will begin seizing private property because of the tyranny of models.
One story’s sadly funny summary:
The Dutch government plans to buy and close down up to 3,000 farms near environmentally sensitive areas to comply with EU nature preservation rules.
The Netherlands is attempting to cut down its nitrogen pollution and will push ahead with compulsory purchases if not enough farms take up the offer voluntarily.
Farmers will be offered a deal “well over” the worth of the farm, according to the government plan that is targeting the closure of 2,000 to 3,000 farms or other major polluting businesses.
Earlier leaked versions of the plan put the figure at 120 per cent of the farm’s value but that figure has not yet been confirmed by ministers.
“There is no better offer coming,” Christianne van der Wal, nitrogen minister, told MPs on Friday. She said compulsory purchases would be made with “pain in the heart”, if necessary.
Is there a better real-life example of the cry bully? Christianne cries out in pain as she strikes you.
There is no nitrogen crisis. It does not exist. The idea one exists come predominately in the form of models, which were generated by Experts. The models, following the usual process, become The Science. Which only “deniers” question.
Back in August I posted this: “The Model That Dutch Rulers Rely On To Claim There Is A Nitrogen ‘Crisis’ Has No Skill“. Please read that. That post links to a paper Jaap Hanekamp and I did, which is “Criticizing AERIUS/OPS Model Performance.”
The paper is not that complicated. If you’ve any background in old-fashioned science (and are not saturated in The Science), you’ll be able to follow.
RIVM, the Regime-backed group that runs the “crisis” model responded to the paper.
We answered their criticism with a rebuttal, which you can download here. The most important response was this:
3. In our paper, we discussed a simple mean model. This greatly confused RIVM. But it is simplicity itself. The RIVM also says the mean model “has no predictive value.” This is false.
The mean model is just the mean, or a guess of a mean, of what future observations will be. It is used as a forecast or prediction of future observations, in the precise same way as the OPS, or any complex model, is used. The simple mean model is a constant prediction that all future observations will equal previously observed mean.
Mean models are common and useful. For instance, we don’t know what the exact temperature will be, but it’s a good bet October will be colder than September in the Netherlands. Right now, writing in August of 2022, using that model, we predict October will be colder than September. Policy can be made on that model; and, indeed, is. Especially by farmers.
The mean is possibly not as accurate as a complex meteorological model based on thermodynamics, but it (the mean) is still an excellent guess in the absence of that complex model.
We can, and should, compare a mean model with the more complex model. If it turns out, using the very measures advocated by RIVM, the mean model beats the complex model, we should not use the complex model. We would do better with the mean model. This is obvious. We say the complex model does not have skill with respect to the mean model.
Skill is a common in weather, climate and atmospheric deposition models. We supply many references in our paper to prove this. We could supply many more, or RIVM can look them up on their own.
Skill is easy to understand. It is a silly argument to say that because it has not been used before by RIVM, it should not be used now, or that it is “not relevant”.
This is a dodge, a way to escape the consequence of the poor performance of the OPS model.
Below, we show how skill works in detail using the mean model, and using data supplied by RIVM themselves. Skill as a concept is exceedingly useful; indeed, necessary.
I struggle to explain skill, which should be applied to all models. Every single statistical model, every model of any kind, should be able to demonstrate skill. If it cannot, it should not be used. Can you please let me know in comments if the concept confuses you?
Now I don’t know enough about Dutch politics to predict what will happen to farmers. I’ll leave that to Jaap (see his blog).
I do know that if the government can seize private property based on lousy The Science, the technique will only expand. Our Regime is pushing “climate change” The Science with a demonic energy. They had Biden say he’d eliminate fossil fuels. The man in charge of the Vatican put out that investing in fossil fuels is bad. Et cetera.
This is insane. It is not sane. It is crazy.
Here is a sampling of other papers we have done proving the “crisis” is, at best, overblown and, as is most likely, ridiculous. (These are the friendliest links to avoid paywalls.)
1. Uncertainty in the MAN Data Calibration & Trend Estimates. Over-certainty, bad statistical methods, etc.
2. Fixes to the Ryden & McNeil Ammonia Flux Model. A physical model which doesn’t account for all uncertainty.
3. Nitrogen Critical Loads: Critical Reflections on Past Experiments, Ecological Endpoints, and Uncertainties. Statistical silliness abounds here.
And we have others in the pipeline.
Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. For Zelle, use my email: firstname.lastname@example.org, and please include yours so I know who to thank.