Subscribe in a reader

Buy Conservative Advertising

Wikio - Top Blogs

Find the best blogs at

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

No one but the author bears any responsibility for the non-advertising content on this blog. AND PLEASE NOTE: the author neither necessarily uses nor endorses any product advertised on this blog.

« A comment on "Bailout Rate of Return: -1,096%" | Main | A defense of business jets »

February 02, 2009

Some harsh words about global warming forecasts

J. Scott Armstrong, noted professor of marketing at Wharton and author one of one of the best-written textbooks I've ever read--Long Range Forecasting, out of print but now available free--concludes that forecasts of global warming are not scientific (the paper is co-authored with Kesten C. Green). A couple of the highlights:

We have concluded that the forecasting process reported on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis.

1. No scientific forecasts of the changes in the Earth’s climate. Currently, the only forecasts are those based on the opinions of some scientists. Computer modeling was used to create scenarios (i.e., stories) to represent the scientists’ opinions about what might happen. The models were not intended as forecasting models (Trenberth 2007) and they have not been validated for that purpose. Since the publication of our paper, no one has provided evidence to refute our claim that there are no scientific forecasts to support global warming.

We conducted an audit of the procedures described in the IPCC report and found that they clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting (Green and Armstrong 2008). (No justification was provided for any of these violations.) For important forecasts, we can see no reason why any principle should be violated. We draw analogies to flying an aircraft or building a bridge or performing heart surgery—given the potential cost of errors, it is not permissible to violate principles.

2. Improper peer review process. To our knowledge, papers claiming to forecast global warming have not been subject to peer review by experts in scientific forecasting. . . .

5. Forecasts are needed of the costs and benefits of alternative actions that might be taken to combat climate change. Assuming that climate change could be accurately forecast, it would be necessary to forecast the costs and benefits of actions taken to reduce harmful effects, and to compare the net benefit with other feasible policies including taking no action. Here again we have been unable to find any scientific forecasts despite our appeals for such studies.

(The whole site the paper is posted on, The Global Warming Challenge, is worth looking at.)


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Some harsh words about global warming forecasts:


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


This scare hoax would be funny if the new administration was not so foolish as to try and shatter our economy based on this garbage. I guess the joke is on us.


So we shouldn't just assume that 'green jobs' and light rail are the magical solutions to everything and work backwards from there?! ;-)


The Sunday Detroit Free Press had an hysterical editorial yesterday, complaining about GW 'skeptics' who oppose the 'consensus' solely on non-scientific grounds and 'cherry-pick anecdotes' to support their case.

After opening with that, the Freep went on to ladle out the non-scientific anecdotal evidence that 'proved' GW is a huge threat and we should do something (spend trillions) *right now*!!

Possibly the worst editorial I've ever had the misfortune to read.


The question is if the government has prepared or is preparing for alternative scenarios, ie cooling? We do not have the food nor energy to cope with an extended cooling spell. Isn't a key government role to help prepare for contingency scenarios?

Karbon Kenny

Yes, global warming is a hoax. Carbon offsets are a scam. Get free carbon offsets here:

Don't ever pay.

john Henry

According to to the UN IPCC there has been a grand total of about 0.5 deg F of warming over the past 150 years. That is taking the difference between the minimum low temp and the maximum high.

There are so many problems with the way the "global temperature" is calculated that I question whether it is even conceptually possible.

And then they try to tease out 1/2 degree over 150 years from temperatures that vary at least 10 deg on any given day and 50-100 degrees over the course of a year?

1) I don't believe it is possible

2) Even if there really is a 0.5 degree rise, I don't see it as enough to worry about.

I'd be more worried about the downward trend now predicted for the next 30 years. That is, if I had any faith in their ability to measure, much less predict, anything.

John Henry

The comments to this entry are closed.

Powered by TypePad
Member since 07/2003

Shelfari: Book reviews on your book blog