Archive for July, 2011
We didn’t post this story at the time, but it is too good not to share more widely. On March 31, Scott Armstrong gave testimony to the U.S. Congressional Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on research to date on forecasting for the manmade global warming alarm. The event drew comment from New York Times columnist and Nobel Economics Laureate Paul Krugman on April 3. Professor Krugman made a play of finding it humorous that a leading expert on forecasting would be asked to testify on forecasting climate.
Our favorite quote from Krugman’s column is “… let’s talk a bit more about that list of witnesses, which raised the same question I and others have had about a number of committee hearings held since the G.O.P. retook control of the House — namely, where do they find these people?”
Perhaps Professor Krugman should get out more and meet some of the many scientists and the majority of voters who have realized that the dangerous manmade global warming alarm is simply not credible.
The New York Times published our letter of response on 10 April. Here is the text:
A Forecasting Expert Testifies About Climate Change
To the Editor:
In “The Truth, Still Inconvenient” (column, April 4), Paul Krugman begins with a “joke” about “an economist, a lawyer and a professor of marketing” walking into a room, in this case to testify at a Congressional hearing on climate science.
I am the marketing professor, and I was invited to testify because I am a forecasting expert. With Dr. Kesten C. Green and Dr. Willie Soon, I found that the global warming alarm is based on improper forecasting procedures. We developed a simple model that provides forecasts that are 12 times more accurate than warming-alarm forecasts for 90 to 100 years ahead.
We identified 26 analogous situations, such as the alarm over mercury in fish. Government actions were demanded in 25 situations and carried out in 23. None of the alarming forecasts were correct, none of the interventions were useful, and harm was caused in 20. Mr. Krugman challenged 2 of the 26 analogies, “acid rain and the ozone hole,” which he said “have been contained precisely thanks to environmental regulation.” We are waiting for his evidence.
“What’s the punch line?” he asked. I recommended an end to government financing for climate change research and to associated programs and regulations. And that’s no joke.
J. SCOTT ARMSTRONG
Philadelphia, April 6, 2011
The writer is a professor at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
After five months below the no-change forecast, temperatures have crossed the Al Gore forecast line. See the graph of actual temperature to June 2011 and the history of the bet with Scott Armstrong, to date, in the column on the right. Remember, you can click the graph to get a bigger image for closer inspection.