[ExI] The unscientific nature of existing climate forecasts

[Lee Corbin]

Max writes


> My commentary on an incisive new paper by forecasting experts 
> Armstrong and Green:
> 
> Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts
> by J. Scott Armstrong, Kesten C. Green
> http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreCO.aspx?coid=CO770716334614

Max writes a very nice piece in support of the very cautious attitude
that we should take concerning "scientific" claims about global warming,
and *especially* concerning claims about anthropogenic global warming.

But I don't find the paper itself all that impressive. Damien had posted
a link to the paper itself:

From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 11:16 AM
Subject: [ExI] NASA report on re-engineering global warming


> http://event.arc.nasa.gov/main/home/reports/SolarRadiationCP.pdf

So there is this *one* guy, J. Scott Armstrong and associates who
have come up 140 "forecasting principles".  (To be fair, I have not
studied those principles. But my skepticism has been triggered.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armstrong,_J._Scott

As one bad sign about the paper, notice he proudly exhibits
"Wikipedia's List of Global Warming Skeptics".  Among them I
see a TV personality, "Fred Barnes"!  Now this whole paper 
purports to embrace only the *highest* scientific standards, and
the exhibition of such is *not* helpful.

I myself have been forced, against my experience and intutions,
to admit that global warming is taking place. True, most of that is
second-hand reliance on many, many people I admire and look
up to, and as a pious Bayesian I must attribute no little probably
correctness to their views.  But there are also some rather
compelling graphs and data I've seen myself.  

First, let's try to distinguish exactly what we mean by "global
warming".  I mean what is been happening since 1970 or so.
Others mean what has been happening for a much longer 
period.  Now in the current politically correct atmosphere,
it often means the "ideology of climate change", the frenzied
effort to engage in massive society-wide self-denial to throw
ourselves in front of the juggernaut for the sake of Mother
Earth. And ABOVE ALL to increase the flow of funding to
climate scientists, increase taxation, weaken the influence
of corporations, and inflict as much damage as possible on
the economy in the hopes of resurrecting "nicer" alternatives
to capitalism.  But I digress.

Lee