Archive for April, 2017
“A lot of these people that were marching weren’t familiar with the first Earth Day in 1970. The first Earth Day said, ‘The science is settled: the Earth is getting colder.’ And the government said, ‘Give us your money, and we’ll save you,’” Armstrong told SiriusXM host Alex Marlow.
“The earth did not get colder. In fact, it got a bit warmer,” he noted. “So money was wasted, people forgot. But then last Saturday, we’re told once again that this time it’s really settled, and it’s getting warmer this time. So give us your money, and we’ll save you.”
According to the UAH satellite measure of global temperatures the March anomaly, at 0.19°C, was down from the same month in 2007 (0.26°C), the base year of the Armstrong-Gore “Bet” on whether dangerous manmade global warming was a good forecast. Temperatures cooled during 2007, so the March anomaly, while down strongly from the previous month, is still slightly warmer than the average for the 2007 year, which was a little under 0.16°C.
On the basis of the Green, Armstrong, and Soon (2009) no change (no trend) forecast, Professor Armstrong bet that global mean temperatures during the ten years from 2008 to 2017 would be closer to the 2007 average than to the 0.3°C warming trend projected by the U.N. IPCC and Mr Gore’s alarming “tipping point” rapid rise in global temperatures.
To date, the average monthly signed error of Professor Armstrong’s forecast is -0.01°C. In other words, the no-trend forecast has been on the high-side as much as it has been on the low side of the actual global average anomaly. By contrast, Mr Gore’s IPCC stand-in projection has had an average monthly signed error of +0.15°C, which suggests a strong bias toward warming.
Professor Scott Armstrong presented a talk on this topic by him and Kesten Green at Heartland’s Twelfth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC12) on March 23 in Chicago.
The talk asks the question, “Are long-term forecasts of dangerous global warming scientific?”, and concludes…
- the only 2 papers with scientific forecasts found no long-term trends
- IPCC methods violate 81% of the 89 relevant scientific principles
- IPCC long-term forecasts errors for 90-100 years ahead were 12 times larger than the no-trend forecasts
- tests on three other data sets, one going back to 112 AD, found similarly poor accuracy
- the “long-term global cooling” hypothesis was twice as accurate as the dangerous global warming hypothesis
Also “no” because the warming alarm…
- ignores all 20 of the relevant Golden Rule of Forecasting guidelines; the AGS scientific forecasts violated only one
- violates Occam’s razor
- fails to comply with any of the 8 criteria for scientific research
- fails to provide scientific forecasts of harm to people
- fails to provide scientific forecasts that “solutions” will work
- fails to meet any of the 10 necessary conditions for successful regulation
- is similar to 23 earlier environmental alarms supported by the government: all lacked scientific forecasts and all were wrong.”
A video of his presentation and a copy of a more complete set of slides with links to evidence, is available from here.