Green and Armstrong offer up “devastating attack” on greenhouse claims
In the Australian Financial Review (September 8, 2007), Mark Lawson’s article, “Global warming sceptics fuel hot debate” features Dr. Green, and highlights the Green and Armstrong paper. The following is an excerpt:
Global warming sceptics fuel hot debate
(Click here for full text)Mark Lawson
“Despite being scorned, derided and accused of links with oil companies, the climate change sceptics are still out there and, although the greenhouse lobby will never admit it, occasionally scoring major points. They may also be more numerous than the greenhouse lobby or politicians believe…
A much more serious, if not devastating, attack on greenhouse claims concerning likely future temperature increases was the recent release of a paper entitled Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts.
Written by J. Scott Armstrong, a professor of marketing at The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, and Kesten Green, a visiting fellow at the business and economics forecasting unit at Monash University in Melbourne, the paper assessed, as forecasts, the temperature projections made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change earlier this year. It found little to approve.”
Armstrong Calls for Collaboration between Climate Scientists and Forecasting Researchers
Although climate scientists have extensive climate knowledge and are aided by computer models, their long-term forecasts are essentially their judgments of what will happen in the decades to come. Unstructured judgments are used to determine the structure and much of the content of climate models. Unstructured judgments are also used to accept or reject model outputs.
Green and Armstrong (2007) found that climate modelers do not use evidence-based principles to forecast. In fact, they violate many principles of forecasting.
One solution to this problem is to combine what is known about forecasting methods with what climate scientists know. Knowledge about forecasting is provided at http://forecastingprinciples.com. In addition, the site lists many experts in forecasting methods who are available as consultants.
Updated version of the Green & Armstrong paper
Click for the paper, “Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts“
Substantial revisions have been made in the paper thanks to additional peer review. The authors continue to work on further revisions and they seek further peer review, especially from those who might see shortcomings with the paper.
Revised Paper For Publication
Green and Armstrong’s paper, “Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts” has gone through substantial revisions in the past several weeks. Got comments and suggestions?
Email: kesten at paradise dot net dot nz or armstrong at wharton dot upenn dot edu
Chorus does not justify climate prophecies
Armstrong and Green’s work was featured in the Sydney Morning Herald’s July 7, 2007 article, “Chorus does not justify climate prophecies” by Michael Duffy:
The next week promises some excitement for those who believe global warming threatens our future. Today they can enjoy the Live Earth concert in Sydney. But on Thursday they will have to suffer ABC TV’s showing of The Great Global Warming Swindle, a British documentary sceptical of the orthodoxy…
Dr. Kesten Green Featured on Counterpoint
Click here for the audio of the interview. Click “Listen now” and move the slider to about 34 minutes to hear the relevant clip.
Making predictions is a difficult business, Dr Kesten Green an expert in the field, says that many scientists when looking at the future impact and extent of climate change fail to take into account the basic principles of forecasting.
Counterpoint is a program on the Radio National Network of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, presented by Michael Duffy and Paul Comrie-Thompson.
News Coverage
• Special Report with Brit Hume recently covered the challenge with the piece “One Expert Is Willing to Bet Money Al Gore Is Wrong About Global Warming.” Interview by FOX News Channel’s Matthew Hill.
Armstrong says he hasn’t gotten a response yet — and Gore’s office did not return a call from us asking for reaction to the challenge.
• Armstrong was also featured on American Family Radio News. Interview was done by Jim Brown, education reporter for American Family Radio News.
• Australia’s Courier Mail featured Dr. Kevin Trenberth as well as Armstrong and Green’s work in the article “Forecasts all up in the air.” Article by Bob Carter.
In a paper [presented] at the 27th International Symposium on Forecasting in New York this week, Scott Armstrong and Kesten Green audit the relevant chapter in the IPCC’s latest report. They find that “in apparent contradiction to claims by some climate experts that the IPCC provides ‘projections’ and not ‘forecasts’, the word ‘forecast’ and its derivatives occurred 37 times, and ‘predict’ and its derivatives occur 90 times” in the chapter.
Are you waiting for Gore’s response too? Why not digg us?
Armstrong: Featured Speaker at ISF ‘07
Scott Armstrong will present the Armstrong and Green paper, Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts, at a session at the International Symposium on Forecasting on Wednesday June 27 at 11:45 in the Olmstead Room of the Marriott Hotel in Times Square. The session will introduce the Public Policy Forecasting site. Following in the tradition of “Julian Simon’s Bet,” Scott Armstrong will announce a $20,000 challenge (each side to post $10,000 to go to a charitable cause nominated by the winner) that he will be able to more accurately forecast climate change than can any currently available fully disclosed climate model.
