Number four in Craig Kelly’s series 20 reasons why the Wuhan Flu is the final nail in the climate alarmists’ coffin.

The entire Climate Cult is built upon doomsday computer model projections which the naïve and gullible have been tricked into believing are infallible. To cult members, these computer models forecasts are not only irrefutable, but tenets of their faith carved in stone.

However, the hopelessly inaccurate computer modelling of the Wuhan Flu, where the world’s supposedly leading computer modeller Neil Ferguson has been exposed as a crackpot, an international laughing stock and forced to resign, has provided the public with a valuable lesson of the golden rule of modelling; garbage in, garbage out – and that computer modelling is often more about the politics than it is about the science, no more accurate than a clairvoyant reading the entrails of a freshly sacrificed chicken.

The alarmist climate change computer models, such as those Tim Flannery used to prophecies that Warragamba Dam would never again fill, or the models that foretold of 50 million climate refugees by 2010, or the models that predicted the entire Maldives would be underwater by now, generally forecast events a decade or longer into the future, so their absurdity takes time to become apparent. In comparison, the computers models for the Wuhan Flu are on fast forward.

Take the ABC coronavirus ‘expert’ scaremonger Dr Norman Swan, who on March 21 (when Australia had just over 1,000 coronavirus cases) used computer models to predict that the number of cases in Australia would be “7,000 – 8,000 by next weekend’’. So sure was the ABC’s ‘expert’ of the computer models he added “Primary school maths. No magic fairy will bring that down”, warning that we were just “14-21 days behind Italy” which on that date had recorded 4,825 deaths.

However, by “next weekend”, 28/29 March, Australia only had 3,378 cases on the Saturday and 3,809 cases on the Sunday — not the numbers Swan foretold. So in just over a week, the ABC expert’s computer models were more than 100 per cent out. Faulty predictions of such scale would make even Tim Flannery blush.

Internationally, we have witnessed similar alarmist failures. In early April computer models produced by Uppsala University predicted that unless Sweden abandoned it’s unique approach to the Wuhan Flu and immediately adopted stringent lockdown policies similar to those being imposed upon the rest of Europe (which would have crippled Sweden’s economy, causing mass unemployment, poverty, hardship and many deaths from other causes) that even using conservative estimates, that coronavirus deaths in Sweden would rocket to more than 40,000 shortly after May 1, and another 60,000 would die in throughout the month, taking the death count to almost 100,000 by the beginning of June.

And in its most optimistic scenario, this computer model (produced by university ‘experts’) also predicted that if the Swedish government changed course by April 10 (as an army of alarmists were screaming for) and imposed the most severe of the lockdown strategies, that the total would be reduced from 96,000 to fewer than 25,000 by June 1.

History now records that the pragmatic and courageous Swedes stuck to their guns, ignored the alarmist computer models and refused to implement the harsh lockdowns implemented by other European nations, and by May 1, Sweden had recorded 2,653 deaths – not the 40,000 foretold by the computer models.

Further, it should be noted that although Sweden’s death toll seems high by Taiwan’s or Australia’s numbers, at time of writing, when measured in deaths per million Sweden (308 deaths per million) has experienced substantially lower deaths than several other European nations which imposed strict lockdowns such as Belgium (735), Spain (562), Italy (495) UK (451) and France (398).

Ultimately, no one will ever be able to tally the total unnecessary cost, the hardship, the suffering, the increased poverty, the economic and social damage, and the all extra (non-Wuhan Flu) deaths and illnesses that have resulted from treating doomsday computer models as gospel during this current crisis.

The comparison between Australia and New Zealand also demonstrates this, as despite the Kiwi’s much harsher lockdown policies, inflicting upon themselves far greater suffering and economic damage, their numbers per million in terms of infections and deaths are almost identical to Australia’s.

Let’s hope that having been burnt so badly this time, the world will learn a valuable lesson and treat the failed and failing political Climate Alarmist’s computer models with the scepticism they deserve – and if so, we can drive yet another nail into the climate alarmists’ coffin.

Craig Kelly is the Liberal MP for Hughes.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.