Posted on 07/15/2007 8:27:59 PM PDT by StopGlobalWhining
See Source URL for complete report. Note that the authors state that they received no funding for this study.
Abstract
In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group One, a panel of experts established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, issued its updated, Fourth Assessment Report, forecasts. The Report was commissioned at great cost in order to provide policy recommendations to governments. It included predictions of dramatic and harmful increases in average world temperatures over the next 92 years. Using forecasting principles as our guide we asked, are these forecasts a good basis for developing public policy? Our answer is “no.”
To provide forecasts of climate change that are useful for policy-making, one would need to forecast (1) global temperature, (2) the effects of any temperature changes, (3) the effects of alternative policies, and (4) whether the best policy would be successfully implemented. Proper forecasts of all four are necessary for rational policy making.
The IPCC Report was regarded as providing the most credible long-term forecasts of global average temperatures by 31 of the 51 scientists and others involved in forecasting climate change who responded to our survey. We found no references to the primary sources of information on forecasting methods despite the fact these are easily available in books, articles, and websites. In our audit of Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s WG1 Report, we found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of a total of 140 forecasting principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical.
We concluded that the forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful. Instead, policies should be based on forecasts from scientific forecasting methods. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.
http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/WarmAudit31.pdf
Good post. I read the abstract but not the full article. Seems to be a lot more logically argued than the climate-change claims themsleves.
bookmark for later. Thanks for the find.
Believing in global warming is a lot like believing in hell — many people don’t really believe in it, but the chance that it MIGHT be right causes them to at least give it some lip service.
Like a belief in hell, the consequences of being wrong, no matter how remote the chances, are thought to be sooooo great that one must hedge the bets and at least do the minimums to appease the situation.
Granted, there are many here who believe in an actual physical place called “Hell” (I live near Hell, Michigan btw), and likewise there are some who really believe in global warming. I suspect, however, in both cases, many more are just hedging bets.
We’ll see how deep the belief in global warming is once the fad wears off (remember styrofoam? CFC’s? Holes in the Ozone? shall I name more eviro fads?) and people have to choose between an electric 2-seat golf cart and a 4-seat biofuel SMART car.
self-ping
I have been to Hell (on Grand Cayman). Nice little place, though a bit dry and dusty!
“I have been to Hell (on Grand Cayman). Nice little place, though a bit dry and dusty!”
I slept at the Phantom Ranch in the Grand Canyon. The staff was obviously trained back at Hell....
Looks to be an excellent but long read.
I think this misses the point somewhat. Consensus forecasts by experts are not necessarily unreliable. They may even be quite reliable. The problem here is that we have no basis for judging the reliability of these 100 year warming forecasts. Public policy should never be based on science of undemonstrated reliability. Let the AWG advocates forecast warming over the next decade and compare to forecasts of other methods. If their forecast is better than 95% or, better, 99% of the others, then it might be worth a policy bet.
One problem is nearly all of the global warming crowd are also democrats, who haven’t been right on anything since grover cleveland.
As the earth gets warmer, irregularly and spottily, but in the main, relentlessly, the skeptics will dwindle away. This is easy science. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We’re upping the concentration, so far by 35%, and as time goes by, to maybe double the preindustrial level. Methane levels are also rising. Unsurprisingly, we’re now seeing the warmest years on record.
Bump.
And just what records are you using as your source? CO2 is up by 35% from what? I watched as Gore’s movie used bogus charts and compared apples and oranges. When a supposed scientific model does not include the sun’s temperatures known variances, it ceases to be scientific, it becomes farcical. It would be better to be able to adjust and adapt than attempt to turn around something that can’t be proven as happening. But then no matter what was done, if the earth cooled, victory could be claimed. Bingo. Follow the money.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.