Is carbon dioxide a good causal variable for forecasting global temperature? Have there been alarms in the past similar to the current alarm over dangerous manmade global warming and, if so, what happened? Can rule-based forecasting help forecast global mean temperatures? What do prediction markets reveal?

These questions and more will be answered at a climate forecasting session at the International Symposium on Forecasting presenting work by Green, Armstrong, and Graefe. To be useful, forecasts should be substantially more accurate than those from a simple benchmark method, for example the no-change model. We suggest taking the following self-administered quiz Please write down your estimate and then follow the link to find the answer.

Q. Assume that at the end of 1850 you started making 50-year-ahead no-change forecasts such that your first forecast was that the global mean temperature in 1900 would be the same as 1850’s. By 2008 you would have accumulated 108 forecasts for which you knew the global mean temperature (i.e to 2007). What would be the mean absolute error of your 50-year ahead no-change forecasts in degrees-Celsius?

A. See the abstract of the Green, Armstrong, and Soon paper “Validity of Climate Change Forecasting for Public Policy Decision Making” located at http://kestencgreen.com/naiveclimate.pdf.

The climate bet between Scott Armstrong and Al Gore was released in a real money prediction market on Intrade. Gore predicts that it will be warmer, while Armstrong predicts no change. Who will be ahead after three years? Monitor the current status and place your bets here.

Take a beak from the serious discussions on the topic to view this spoof of Al Gore, which appeared recently on liberalmadness.com

As published on The Climate Depot,  Gallup Poll Editor Frank Newport commented on Al Gore’s validity in the global warming debate.

“Any measure that we look at shows Al Gore’s losing at the moment. The public is just not that concerned.” more

Gore avoids appearing with Lord Moncton at scheduled hearing by the U.S. House Energy and Commerce meeting on April 24. ‘House Democrats don’t want Gore humiliated’ according to the Climate Depot on Thursday. April 23, 2009.

Washington DC — UK’s Lord Christopher Monckton, a former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, claimed House Democrats have refused to allow him to appear alongside former Vice President Al Gore at high profile global warming hearing on Friday April 24, 2009 at 10am in Washington. Monckton told Climate Depot that the Democrats rescinded his scheduled joint appearance at the House Energy and Commerce hearing on Friday. Monckton said he was informed that he would not be allowed to testify alongside Gore when his plane landed from England Thursday afternoon. More…

Does the Wisdom of Solomon Extend to the Science of Forecasting?

by J. Scott Armstrong

SOLOMON ET AL. (2009) share their opinions with us about what will happen to the climate over the next 1,000 years. I am willing to accept that Susan Solomon and her coauthors are experts in their fields and that they are doing their best to provide useful long-term forecasts. For the purposes of discussion, let’s assume that they are the smartest people in the world and that, like King Solomon, they have great wisdom. But are their forecasts of any value? Evidence on the value of experts’ forecasts began to be published in the 1930s. I summarized the evidence in Armstrong (1978). When I found that people resisted the evidence, I proposed the seer-sucker theory: “No matter how much evidence exists that seers do not exist, seers will find suckers” (Armstrong 1980).

And then, along came Philip Tetlock (2005) with findings from an ambitious experiment. He had recruited 284 people whose professions included “commenting or offering advice on political and economic trends.” He asked them to forecast the probability that various outcomes would or would not occur, picking situations within and outside their areas of expertise. Over a 20-year period ending in 2003, he had accumulated 82,361 forecasts. He then evaluated the experts’ predictions against the outcomes, and compared these with predictions from simple statistical procedures, uninformed non-experts, and well-informed non-experts. The experts barely if at all outperformed informed non-experts and neither group of forecasters did well against simple rules and models. What can we conclude about the value of predictions from experts who are unaided by scientific forecasting principles? Here is how we summarized the findings in Green and Armstrong (2007):

For long-term forecasts for complex situations where the causal factors are subject to uncertainty (as with climate), unaided judgmental forecasts by experts have no value. This applies whether the opinions are expressed in words, spreadsheets, or mathematical models. It applies regardless of how much scientific evidence [about the domain of interest] is possessed by the experts. Among the reasons are:

a) Complexity — People cannot assess complex relationships through unaided observations.

b) Coincidence — People confuse correlation with causation.

c) Feedback — People making judgmental predictions rarely receive unambiguous feedback they can use to improve their forecasting.

d) Bias — People have difficulty obtaining or using evidence that contradicts their initial beliefs. People who view themselves as experts are particularly prone to this problem.

In sum, speculation about the future, even by the cleverest and most well-informed people, should be spurned by policymakers. Instead, policymakers should make decisions based upon forecasts from scientific forecasting procedures.

References:

Armstrong, J.S. (1980). “The seer-sucker theory: The value of experts in forecasting,” Technology Review, 83 (June-July), 16-24.

Armstrong, J.S. (1978). Long-Range Forecasting: From Crystal Ball to Computer. New York: Wiley-Interscience.

Green, K. C. & J. S. Armstrong (2007). “Global warming: Forecasts by scientists versus scientific forecasts,” Energy and Environment, 18, 997-1021.

Solomon, S., G. Plattner, R. Knutti & P. Friedlingstein (2009). “Irreversible climate changes due to carbon dioxide emissions,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Feb 10, 2009.

Tetlock, P.E. (2005). Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Talks (videos, audios, and PowerPoint shows) have been posted for all of the talks given at the International Climate Change Conference in New York City in early March of 2009. Judge for yourself as to the quality of the scientific work presented. The talks are here.

Scott Armstrong was interviewed about the polar bear “crisis” by BBC on March 9. Here is the 6-minute interview.

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) has been running commercials to appeal for members and donations. The commercials have claimed that global warming is causing the population of polar bears to decrease rapidly thereby putting the species at risk of extinction. Might the WWF be engaged in false advertising? This the question that Scott Armstrong, a professor of marketing at the Wharton School who has taught advertising for over 35 years, is asking. Professor Armstrong will discuss this case at the International Conference on Climate Change on March 9 in New York City. He has been trying to contact senior officers of the WWF since December 12, 2008, to ask them to explain their side of the story. Despite many attempts, he has not received a response from the WWF. See a full description of the problem and prior correspondence below.

In an appeal for members and donations, commercials by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) have claimed that the number of polar bears is decreasing rapidly, thereby putting the entire species at risk of extinction. For example, here are excerpts from a TV commercial, “Noah Wyle for the WWF,” posted on YouTube and stating that because of climate change:

“Polar bears are on their way to extinction. If we don’t act now, most will die in our children’s lifetime. But you can help change that. Call now and join the Wildlife Rescue team. . . . If we don’t act now, it could be too late for the polar bear.”

Professor Scott Armstrong, a Wharton School professor wondered what the basis was for these claims. The statement that “polar bears are on their way to extinction” is at odds with the conclusion of his recently published paper which showed that there were no scientific forecasts to support such a claim (Armstrong, Green & Soon, “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit,” Interfaces (2008), 38, 382–405).

As was discussed at the Hearings by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on January 30, 2008, there are apparently many more polar bears now than there were a few decades ago because the ban on hunting has been so successful in protecting them.

Interestingly, as of February 2009, the WWF website claims that:

“The general status of polar bears is currently stable, though there are differences between the populations. Some are stable, some seem to be increasing, and some are decreasing due to various pressures. The status of several populations is not well documented.” This statement contradicts the claim in their advertising campaign.”

Do the WWF commercials represent a case of false advertising, that is, of soliciting money under false premises? If so, should the WWF be required to return the donations that might have conceivably been raised from this campaign? What actions might be taken? Is it a case for federal regulators?

Professor Armstrong has been attempting to contact the WWF’s President and CEO and seven of its trustees by mail, phone, and e-mail since December 12, 2008. Armstrong recommended that the campaign be stopped and that corrective ads should be run to offer to return donations and membership fees. He also mentioned that he would discuss this case in his talk at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York City on March the 8^th to 10th and, to be fair, he would like to present the WWF’s side of the story. To that end, Armstrong said he would circulate a WWF response at his talk. The correspondence for this case is posted at theclimeatebet.com.

As of February 25, he had not received a response from the WWF.

Reference: Armstrong, J.S., K. C. Green and W. Soon “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit,” with commentary, Interfaces (2008), 38, No. 5, 382–405

Contact: For further information, contact Professor J. Scott Armstrong at armstrong@wharton.upenn.edu

Mr. Bruce Babbitt, Chairman of the Board February 17, 2009

World Wildlife Fund

1250 Twenty-Fourth Street, N.W.

P.O. Box 97180

Washington, DC 20090-7180

Dear Mr. Babbitt,

I have been trying to contact representatives of the World Wildlife Fund, but so far,

I have not had much luck. Might you be able to respond to my concerns? I attach a

record of my previous correspondence.

Thanks you for your help in this matter.

Sincerely,

J. Scott Armstrong
Professor of Marketing, The Wharton School, U. of PA.. Phila., PA 19104
Phone 610-622-6480
Home address: 645 Harper Ave., Drexel Hill, PA 19026
Fax 215-898 2534
Homepage: http://jscottarmstrong.com

To the Trustees of the World Wildlife Fund
February 14, 2009

I sent the letter copied below to the President and CEO of the WWF, Mr.
Carter Roberts, on December 12, 2008 via U.S. mail. I sent a follow-up letter
on January 13, 2009, followed by a fax on January 27. I have received no
reply to my correspondence and my attempts to obtain an email address or
phone number for him have been fruitless.

I have checked the WWF website and found it difficult to obtain contact
information for many of the key people. The six Trustees to whom I have
addressed this message were the only ones whose email addresses I could
find.

My letter to Mr. Roberts concerns the important issue of misleading
advertising by the WWF, a subject with which I am familiar having taught
advertising at the Wharton School for about 38 years. I would be grateful if
you would acknowledge receipt of this email and respond to my original
letter to Mr. Roberts.

I plan to discuss this issue in my talk at the upcoming 2009 International
Conference on Climate Change in New York City on March 8 to 10. In the
interests of fairness, the WWF’s side of the issue should be presented. If
you like, I will make an enquiry as to whether it would be possible for a
representative of the WWF to attend the conference and give a short reply
from the floor.

Sincerely.

J. Scott Armstrong
Professor of Marketing, The Wharton School, U. of PA.. Phila., PA 19104
Phone 610-622-6480
Home address: 645 Harper Ave., Drexel Hill, PA 19026
Fax 215-898 2534
email: armstrong@wharton.upenn.edu
Homepage: http://jscottarmstrong.com

Previous Contacts

Mr. Carter Roberts                                                                                    December 12, 2008
President and CEO
World Wildlife Fund
1250 Twenty Fourth Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20090-7180

Dear Mr. Roberts,

On November 9th, 2008, I watched a World Wildlife Fund TV commercial in which I believe you were the spokesperson, but essentially the same video has also aired with Noah Wyle and Sharon Lawrence as spokespersons.  In an appeal for members and donations, the advertisement provides a message that the number of polar bears is decreasing rapidly, thereby putting the entire species at risk of extinction.

The claim is surprising because the following statement was on the WWF website at http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/what_we_do/species/about_species/species_factsheets/polar_bear/pbear_population_distribution/index.cfm on November 14, 2008:

“The general status of polar bears is currently stable, though there are differences between the populations. Some are stable, some seem to be increasing, and some are decreasing due to various pressures. The status of several populations is not well documented.”

With my colleagues, Drs. Kesten Green and Willie Soon, I have reviewed the U.S. Department of the Interior reports on the polar bear population, and they do not provide scientific support for the claims made in your organization’s advertisement. We were unable to obtain evidence indicating a decline in the polar bear population.

Based on relevant published information, we found that the polar bear population has in fact been increasing since hunting restrictions were imposed in the 1970s. These findings were commonly accepted in the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearing on January 30, 2008. Attached is a copy of my testimony for your examination.  In addition, I invite you to read our subsequent paper that also addresses this issue:

Armstrong, J. S., Green, K. C., & Soon, W. (2008), “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit,” Interfaces, 38, 382-345. Available in full text with commentary at http://tinyurl.com/pbforcast

As I am sure you are aware, it is important for advertisers to avoid making false claims. I suggest that you withdraw your inaccurate advertisements and run corrective ads that offer to return donations and membership fees.

I look forward to hearing from you on this matter.

Sincerely,

J. Scott Armstrong
Professor of Marketing, The Wharton School, U. of PA.. Phila., PA 19104
Phone 610-622-6480
Home address: 645 Harper Ave., Drexel Hill, PA 19026
Fax 215-898 2534
Homepage: http://jscottarmstrong.com

Attached: Professor Armstrong’s Testimony Submitted to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (Written version) on January 30, 2008