For forecasting practioners and researchers

Global warming? Not so much

Professors Armstrong and Green, discussed in the post immediately above, have recently released an eye-opening paper about the forecasts of the friendly folks at the IPCC, the high priests of global warming. Here's part of the abstract:

The forecasts in the [IPCC] Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they present the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. We found no references to the primary sources of information on forecasting despite the fact these are easily available in books, articles, and websites. We conducted an audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of the total of 140 principles. The forecasting procedures that were used violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts to support global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.

Um, "consensus," anyone? Where's the consensus in that?

By the way, here's a forecast of my own: we have passed the high-water mark of the theory of man-made global warming. Check back in five years and we'll see.

Two more on global warming. In case you missed it, James M. Taylor, senior fellow at the Heartland Institute, took some wicked shots at Al Gore's contentions:

Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

Personally, I won't be holding my breath.

And Debra J. Saunders of the San Francisco Chronicle points out some problems with the "consensus".

If you want to convince the world that an overwhelming majority of scientists believe in global warming, then start by ignoring scientists who are not true believers. First, establish lists of scientists with your approved position, then smear dissidents. Soon, up-and-coming scientists will be afraid to cross the rigid green line. . . .

It ought to tell you something that the guide focuses not on the issues, but personal issues and credentials of nonbelievers. Oooooo, a senator has a flack who spins. How nefarious. I'm sure global warming guru and former Vice President Al Gore only hired monks.

Most insulting is the insinuation that skeptics are after money, while believers are pure. Nonsense, David Legates, Delaware state climatologist, told me. Dire global warming predictions draw the big bucks in research these days: "There's a lot more money to be made by saying the world is coming to an end than to say that this is a bunch of hooey."

(I know I wrote a little while back that I was tired of global warming and wouldn't be posting about it. I can only say in my defense what Al said in G3: "Just when I thought that I was out, they pull me back in!")