Forecasting Guru Announces: "no scientific basis for forecasting climate"

It has been an interesting couple of days. Today yet another scientist has come forward with a press release saying that not only did their audit of IPCC forecasting procedures and found that they “violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting”, but that “The models were not intended as forecasting models and they have not been validated for that purpose.” This organization should know, they certify forecasters for many disciplines and in conjunction with John Hopkins University if Washington, DC, offer a Certificate of Forecasting Practice. The story below originally appeared in the blog of Australian Dr. Jennifer Marohasy. It is reprinted below, with with some pictures and links added for WUWT readers. – Anthony

j-scott-armstrong iif-website

J. Scott Armstrong, founder of the International Journal of Forecasting

Guest post by Jennifer Marohasy

YESTERDAY, a former chief at NASA, Dr John S. Theon, slammed the computer models used to determine future climate claiming they are not scientific in part because the modellers have “resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists”. [1]

Today, a founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, Journal of Forecasting, International Institute of Forecasters, and International Symposium on Forecasting, and the author of Long-range Forecasting (1978, 1985), the Principles of Forecasting Handbook, and over 70 papers on forecasting, Dr J. Scott Armstrong, tabled a statement declaring that the forecasting process used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lacks a scientific basis. [2]

What these two authorities, Drs Theon and Armstrong, are independently and explicitly stating is that the computer models underpinning the work of many scientific institutions concerned with global warming, including Australia’s CSIRO, are fundamentally flawed.

In today’s statement, made with economist Kesten Green, Dr Armstrong provides the following eight reasons as to why the current IPCC computer models lack a scientific basis:

1. No scientific forecasts of the changes in the Earth’s climate.

Currently, the only forecasts are those based on the opinions of some scientists. Computer modeling was used to create scenarios (i.e., stories) to represent the scientists’ opinions about what might happen. The models were not intended as forecasting models (Trenberth 2007) and they have not been validated for that purpose. Since the publication of our paper, no one has provided evidence to refute our claim that there are no scientific forecasts to support global warming.

We conducted an audit of the procedures described in the IPCC report and found that they clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting (Green and Armstrong 2008). (No justification was provided for any of these violations.) For important forecasts, we can see no reason why any principle should be violated. We draw analogies to flying an aircraft or building a bridge or performing heart surgery—given the potential cost of errors, it is not permissible to violate principles.

2. Improper peer review process.

To our knowledge, papers claiming to forecast global warming have not been subject to peer review by experts in scientific forecasting.

3. Complexity and uncertainty of climate render expert opinions invalid for forecasting.

Expert opinions are an inappropriate forecasting method in situations that involve high complexity and high uncertainty. This conclusion is based on over eight decades of research. Armstrong (1978) provided a review of the evidence and this was supported by Tetlock’s (2005) study that involved 82,361 forecasts by 284 experts over two decades.

Long-term climate changes are highly complex due to the many factors that affect climate and to their interactions. Uncertainty about long-term climate changes is high due to a lack of good knowledge about such things as:

a) causes of climate change,

b) direction, lag time, and effect size of causal factors related to climate change,

c) effects of changing temperatures, and

d) costs and benefits of alternative actions to deal with climate changes (e.g., CO2 markets).

Given these conditions, expert opinions are not appropriate for long-term climate predictions.

4. Forecasts are needed for the effects of climate change.

Even if it were possible to forecast climate changes, it would still be necessary to forecast the effects of climate changes. In other words, in what ways might the effects be beneficial or harmful? Here again, we have been unable to find any scientific forecasts—as opposed to speculation—despite our appeals for such studies.

We addressed this issue with respect to studies involving the possible classification of polar bears as threatened or endangered (Armstrong, Green, and Soon 2008). In our audits of two key papers to support the polar bear listing, 41 principles were clearly violated by the authors of one paper and 61 by the authors of the other. It is not proper from a scientific or from a practical viewpoint to violate any principles. Again, there was no sign that the forecasters realized that they were making mistakes.

5. Forecasts are needed of the costs and benefits of alternative actions that might be taken to combat climate change.

Assuming that climate change could be accurately forecast, it would be necessary to forecast the costs and benefits of actions taken to reduce harmful effects, and to compare the net benefit with other feasible policies including taking no action. Here again we have been unable to find any scientific forecasts despite our appeals for such studies.

6.  To justify using a climate forecasting model, one would need to test it against a relevant naïve model.

We used the Forecasting Method Selection Tree to help determine which method is most appropriate for forecasting long-term climate change. A copy of the Tree is attached as Appendix 1. It is drawn from comparative empirical studies from all areas of forecasting. It suggests that extrapolation is appropriate, and we chose a naïve (no change) model as an appropriate benchmark. A forecasting model should not be used unless it can be shown to provide forecasts that are more accurate than those from this naïve model, as it would otherwise increase error. In Green, Armstrong and Soon (2008), we show that the mean absolute error of 108 naïve forecasts for 50 years in the future was 0.24°C.

7. The climate system is stable.

To assess stability, we examined the errors from naïve forecasts for up to 100 years into the future. Using the U.K. Met Office Hadley Centre’s data, we started with 1850 and used that year’s average temperature as our forecast for the next 100 years. We then calculated the errors for each forecast horizon from 1 to 100. We repeated the process using the average temperature in 1851 as our naïve forecast for the next 100 years, and so on. This “successive updating” continued until year 2006, when we forecasted a single year ahead. This provided 157 one-year-ahead forecasts, 156 two-year-ahead and so on to 58 100-year-ahead forecasts.

We then examined how many forecasts were further than 0.5°C from the observed value. Fewer than 13% of forecasts of up to 65-years-ahead had absolute errors larger than 0.5°C. For longer horizons, fewer than 33% had absolute errors larger than 0.5°C. Given the remarkable stability of global mean temperature, it is unlikely that there would be any practical benefits from a forecasting method that provided more accurate forecasts.

8.  Be conservative and avoid the precautionary principle.

One of the primary scientific principles in forecasting is to be conservative in the darkness of uncertainty. This principle also argues for the use of the naive no-change extrapolation. Some have argued for the precautionary principle as a way to be conservative. It is a political, not a scientific principle. As we explain in our essay in Appendix 2, it is actually an anti-scientific principle in that it attempts to make decisions without using rational analyses. Instead, cost/benefit analyses are appropriate given the available evidence which suggests that temperature is just as likely to go up as down. However, these analyses should be supported by scientific forecasts.

The reach of these models is extraordinary, for example, the CSIRO models are currently being used in Australia to determine water allocations for farmers and to justify the need for an Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) – the most far-reaching of possible economic interventions.   Yet, according to Dr Armstrong, these same models violate 72 scientific principles.


1. Marc Morano, James Hansen’s Former NASA Supervisor Declares Himself a Skeptic, January 27,2009.

2. “Analysis of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gases”, Drs. J. Scott Armstrong and Kesten C. Green a statement prepared for US Senator Inhofe for an analysis of the US EPA’s proposed policies for greenhouse gases.

Sponsored IT training links:

Get guaranteed success in 312-50 exam in first try using incredible 642-374 dumps and other 310-200 training resources prepared by experts.


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

You remind me of Colombo. Persistent, methodical, constant, questioning, and always after the truth.
I know you would rather we talk about the post but I wanted to give my first thought after reading it.
Thank you for being like Colombo and have a great evening.
REPLY: Steve McIntyre once referred to me as “gumshoe”. I also take it as high complement that you’d compare me to Colombo. – Anthony

Craig Moore

My congressman voted for the Stimulus which contained 400 million for new climate scientists and 2.5 billion for carbon capture. I sent him the link to your article and its contents and asked him to consider the ramifications.

Adam Sullivan

I need to understand something.
I have read conflicting statements from AGW Catastrophists that their models are not forecasts while at the same time stating that in 100 years we will be warmer by X ° C.
I have understood this apparent contradiction to mean that these models aren’t intended to tell you what the weather will be in place Y 10 years from now but that fundamental “ingredients” that make up the environment where climate unfolds will have changed sufficiently to produce the warmer climate.
So I am not sure how to read this criticism by Armstrong. Is he attacking the Catastrophists in an area that they will simply disclaim? That they don’t do forecasts?

Pieter F

And the House voted today to spend $140 million on climate computer modeling? Quick, get this information to your Senators. Perhaps Inhofe will get a chance to present the argument before the Senate votes.

Pamela Gray

Climate is stable, unless you drastically (quickly or slowly – it doesn’t matter) change the location of your address. Weather patterns vary and are quite noisy, but average out to a fairly stable system if you average across several decadel periods. Any model that wishes to be predictive and that does not place this basic understanding of Earth’s atmospheric information into the code will be just plain wrong. But I don’t have to argue that. All I have to do is wait for plain Jane weather to prove it.

Paul Linsay

Yikes, items 6 &7 are absolute killers! These naive models fit on the back of an envelope and can be evaluated with Excel on a ten year old PC in a few minutes. This should create some very interesting discussions.

Kirk W. Hanneman

Another fascinating entry, Anthony. Keep up the great work!


The volume and credibility of reports seem to be growing. Like the small snowball rolling down the hill, gaining size and speed. But wait…..Algore said the debate is over.
I would suggest someone try to modify the very accurate Indian (Native American, First Nation, etc) Weather Rock into a climate forecasting tool. It is pretty simple:
* If weather rock is wet, then it’s raining.
* If weather rock is white, then it’s snowing.
* If weather rock is swaying, then it’s windy.
* If weather rock is swinging in a circular motion, then there’s a tornado.
* If weather rock has a shadow, then the sun is out.
* If weather rock is underwater, then there’s been flooding.
* If weather rock is unseen, then it’s dark out.
* If weather rock is jumping up and down, then there’s an earthquake.
* If weather rock is dirty, then there’s a dust storm.
* If weather rock is gone, you’ve been ripped off.

Robert Rust

Can you imagine what would happen if the public could get these computer models and play with them? Imagine being able to set up the models with information back in 1850 and then run them – and see what they forecast for today. Or, change various parameters (like methane vs. CO2 vs. O3) and see how the model behaves. I suspect that the models would tend to show an “always getting warmer” bias.

Bill Marsh

Truly a stunning couple of days. I wonder if this gentleman will be forced to recant by the Inquisition. Clearly he is in a state of apostasy with this disagreement with the ‘consensus’.
Unfortunately AGW is now a political consensus, not a scientific one. These are remarkably hard to kill off because so many politicians have now invested thier power and reputation in it. It will not be easy for them to say, “Well gosh, I guess I was wrong.”


Wow, as much as I would like the basis of this post to be true I feel leery in buying.
First off the article is hacked together. In the first paragraph we have:
“not only did their audit of IPCC forecasting procedures and found that the”
I think somethimg is missing there. I found several blips like that as I read through the article.
My second problem is that logo is just plain scary. Would any organization really select such thing when making a scientific or political statemaent?
I hope this doesn’t end up being a scam but reading it set off my alarm bells, and that didn’t include the world is coming to an end chime.

There may be some mistake in copy/paste that caused the missing words. I’ll see if I can get my hands on the original, rather than relying on the blog post from Jennifer.
As for the logo, I’ll say this. I’ve yet to see a scientist who can color match an image to make it palatable for the masses. just look at some of the awful color schemes used on some scientific maps and even images for public consumption from NOAA.
The fact that the colors and design of the logo are as bad as they are tell me these guys didn’t give one care in the world to it after the initial design, and that’s actually comforting. Because if they had a slick logo design, they’d be a lot like this:

Frank K.

Pieter F (19:27:53) :
“And the House voted today to spend $140 million on climate computer modeling?”
It will be very interesting to see how our climate modeling friends at NCAR, GISS, GFDL etc. divy up the spoils of this largess. Salary increases all around…new computers…new offices…fat travel budgets (climate conference in Bali, anyone?)…
Yet, government employees like Gavin Schmidt will still complain that there’s not enough money in the budget to document their codes…

Michael J. Bentley

And to continue pummeling the deceased equine:
Again, my fear (along with the feeling my pocket is being legally picked) is that some well meaning moron will attempt some (gov’munt approved and funded) large scale experiment that will really mess up the climate.

Drew (20:06:26)
You mean this rock?: click
I’ll put it up against a climate model any time.

Neil Crafter

yyzdnl (20:11:14) :
My second problem is that logo is just plain scary. Would any organization really select such thing when making a scientific or political statemaent?”
I checked out their website, they look like like a legitimate organisation to me, so someone would have had to go to a lot of trouble setting it up for a scam. The logo choice of colours is striking, but perhaps unfortunate.

Robert Bateman

Instead of forecasting, I am looking back through the geologic record for what is currently happening to the West Coast. We appear to be hung in a climate pattern similar to the Younger Dryas, where in the midst of a melting era of the Laurentide Ice Sheet and accompanying western sheets, a cold period returned. It changed the climate here froma persistent forest/woodland to semi-arid. As soon as the melting resumed, it changed back to the persistent forest/woodland growth.
Since there are no recorded temperatures or weather records for my region in the Dalton or Maunder, and there are no legends or lore to be found, this is all I have to work with.
Just need some sort of sunspot proxy to compare the Younger Dryas to.
Anybody got a pointer?

Harold Vance

$140M is the minimum amount to be spent on data climate modeling. It’s just a minimum. They could well spend even more of the $600M total (that’s earmarked for procurement, acquisition, etc.) on data climate modeling.
What I want to know is who insisted on a floor of $140M for something this obscure?
Also, does anyone know why they are allocating another $400M to the NOAA for habitat restoration? Are data climate modelers an endangered species and are they running out of habitat?

Brent Matich

This just keeps on getting better each day! LOL More scientists making a stand on science rather than their politics.
Brent in Calgary

Robert Bateman

Some well-meaning morons already do have some hair-raising experiments planned to “reverse” the dangerous CO2 and overheating they model.
I have it in a course curriculum I found.
It’s best described as a Doomsday Nightmare, and they fully intend to go through with it if they can get the green light.
I am so very glad to see Theon and Armstrong speaking out, as well as Archibald and others.

Chris V.

7. The climate system is stable.
They’ve never heard of the ice ages??
Or the Younger Dryas?
You guys should tell them about the midieval warm period!
Look’s like a bunch of business profs dabbling in things they know little about.
BTW, Dr. Armstrong is a Professor of Marketing.
REPLY: Forecasting using time series – numbers know no allegiance to profession. – Anthony

Jim B in Canada

I got to go with yyzdnl on this one, I’ve heard this all before it’s going no where fast. Until one of these guys gets a publicist it’s about 4 websites forever, if FOX won’t even give these people the time of day, nothing is going to happen.
And ya what’s the deal with that logo! I live in a predominately Jewish area, and I saw that logo and yell to the wife to start making room in the attic! _ it’s a joke! sheesh

Mike Bryant

Wow, as much as I would like the basis of this comment to be true I feel leery in buying.
First off the comment is hacked together. I found several blips like this as I read through the comment:
“I think somethiMg is missing there.”
You added an “m”.
And this:
“…making a scientific or political statemAent?”
I think something is added there.
And this:
“Would any organization really select such (A) thing when making a scientific or political statemaent?”
It looks like you left out a word there.
My second problem is that your name is just plain scary. Yyzdnl, who would really select such a strange screen name?
I hope this doesn’t end up being a scam but reading it set off my alarm bells, and that didn’t include the world is coming to an end chime.
Maybe you should use your real name like most of the commenters here.
Mike Bryant
PS We all make those little mistakes… Jennifer was probably in a hurry like you were.

Chris V.

Robert Rust (20:06:39) :
Stop imagining. You can download GISS’s climate model at their website.

But getting it to run is a different task altogether. Have you run it? Mind you, not the “educational” version for public consumption with the nice front end GUI, but the one GISS released last year, FORTRAN warts and all, after much public pressure following the 2007 Y2K temperature splice debacle? If you’ve been able to get that one to work, we’d love to see some output here. – Anthony

Neil Crafter

Chris V. (20:55:22) :
Look’s like a bunch of business profs dabbling in things they know little about. BTW, Dr. Armstrong is a Professor of Marketing.”
So Chris, these forecasting specialists are not allowed to criticise the forecasting process of the much touted climate models? Just who is allowed to critique them then? Oh, I know the answer, only the friends of the modellers who already agree with them.


Yes, yyzdnl (20:11:14), I too found that logo just a wee bit on the ‘unusual’ side. Not sure about the article however through the ‘Kester Green’ link, I did find a paper they are submitting to The International Journal of Forecasting titled
‘Validity of Climate Change Forecasting for Public Policy Decision Making’

@ Neil Crafter (20:41:30) :
If a AGW-organisation would use a logo like this than i would be really scared, the choice of colors is just wrong unless the one who came up with has a twisted sense of humor, still that’s a kind of humor you have to keep in front of you if the subjects are as serious as this.
@ Chris V. (20:55:22) :
Yes, but on a human timescale it is stable, and looking back at the last 8000 years it is rather stable, temperatures and weather do change over time, but never in a catastrophic way unless the temperatures drop like at the end of the medival warm period when Europe lost about 25% of its population due to famine and the “Black Death”, when the Vikings had to leave their colonies in Greenland and the Anasazi who dissappeared in the west of the US.
Climate change is bad when the temperatures drop, in all of history you never hear people complain about rising temperatures, thats only something from the last decades.

Chris V.

Neil Crafter (21:11:45) :
They can critique anything they want.
If I wanted to know about CGMs, I’d ask a climate modeller.
If I wanted to know how to convince people to spend $3 a bottle for something they can get free from the tap, I’d ask a marketing professor.


Chris V. (20:55:22) :
Look’s like a bunch of business profs dabbling in things they know little about. BTW, Dr. Armstrong is a Professor of Marketing.”
O.K. so Dr. Armstrong may not be one of those much vaunted climatologists but he certainly doesn’t seem to be a dill. From the Wharton Uni. of Pennsylvania Marketing Dept.
‘A member of the Wharton Marketing Faculty since 1968, Professor Armstrong received his PhD in Management from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, his MS in Industrial Administration from Carnegie Mellon University, and his BS degree in Industrial Engineering and BA in Applied Science from Lehigh University…In 1996, he was selected as one of the first six Honorary Fellows by the International Institute of Forecasters’

Robert van der Veeke (21:26:31) :
in all of history you never hear people complain about rising temperatures, thats only something from the last decade
Warm is better than cold, anytime.

F Rasmin

Snow? It was just over 113 degrees fahrenheit here in Adelaide Australia yesterday.


OK, so Dr. Armstrong is not involved in climate science, and his logo does seem a bit odd, particularly for a Marketing Professor. However, it seems he is questioning the methodology used in the climate forecasts, and it seems as if he is reasonably qualified to comment on science behind forecasting.
I would feel comfortable arguing that the business world has more forecasting experience than the science community. Armstrong has been at Wharton for 40 years. Wharton is considered one of the top 2 or 3 business schools in the world. His PhD is from MIT, MS from Carnegie…..the dude ain’t dumb.
A debate on climate forecasting….Algore vs. Armstrong…. Vegas wouldn’t bother to post odds!


From the never heard off before IIF:
Scott Armstrong (1996) Professor of Marketing at the University of Pennsylvania, USA: For his work in establishing the Institute and serving as an editor of the Journal and on the Board of Directors; for his wide-ranging research contributions, particularly on the empirical evaluation of different approaches to forecasting; for innovative approaches to the teaching of forecasting.
Okay, lets follow the money trail.
REPLY: Rob, what makes you automatically assume there’s a “money trail”? Looking for big oil again? 😉 Anthony

Terry J

Here is a discussion thread on their website: If it is fake they put a lot of work in the fake, and there are many more years available.
Sorry I am not conversant on how to make a clicky of it.
The ‘naive’ forecast is a classic “if present trends continue” exercise. What happens when you go back prior to the Dalton or Maunder Minimums and run the same exercise?
Based on the available information I am aware of, it would appear that some combination of solar activity followed by ocean condition (AMO, PDO ENSO, perhaps others) would account for upwards of 85% of any observed variance, unless there is a major volcanic event. Yep, too many weasel words but there are a lot of unquantified influences.
Is there any way to obtain a several hundred year record of actual observed temperatures at clearly rural locations? It would not take may sites if they were widely located and had maintained a consistent rural character to present an unadjusted and unmanipulated picture of temperature trends.
As the deliveryman noted in Alaska last July, it was a nice mild winter that summer.

Robert Bateman

Is there a Grand Minimum to match the Younger Dryas?
Or a series of them?

Ron (Tex) McGowan

I’m no expert but doesn’t it seem strange to anyone that now the economy’s gone to s**t and has become the big issue, all of a sudden all sorts of people are popping up saying “There’s no global warming! We don’t need to worry about CO2!” ??
The rich, the Republicans and big business would be loving this.


Robert Bateman
Some current work suggests incoming objects (comet?) is responsible for the Younger Dryas. See
I don’t know how valid it is, but if true, solar phenomena wouldn’t correlate


I read their 2008 when it was first published. I was convinced that it was a serious study. One thing that struck me was their comment that forecasting was a distinct discipline (like statistics, but including a wider range of factors than just numbers) and subject to empirical study. For example, a high level of consensus leads to weak forecasting (cf IPCC). That’s an empirical observation, look at studies with high and low consensus levels and see which did better. I was also persuaded that scientists don’t often do forecasting: that is, predict a future observation rather than interpret an existing one. There are celebrated cases but only because we remember them because they turned out to be correct. Serious forecasting involves repeated prediction of the future and then checking whether it turned out to be correct. Taken across the board, science as a whole has a very poor record judged in that way.

John Nicklin

Slightly off topic, but in the general theme, CBC, Canada’s national broadcaster carried a story about Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change saying that “There is no clear evidence that global warming is an imminent danger to the world”
The story is at

Just want truth...

“We conducted an audit of the procedures described in the IPCC report and found that they clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting”
I see the word “clearly” in there.
Never seen anything as damnatory to AGW as this man’s findings and reputation; can anything be more!


Sekerob (22:02:29) :
From the never heard off before IIF:……
I never heard of it either, but before I opened my mouth and inserted my foot I did some research.
Google “forecasting” just for fun.
Google “J Scott Armstrong” he literally wrote the book on forecasting.
He is the second most published faculty member at Wharton, 1988-93.
He knows forecasting. His criticism is damning to say the least.
Here is his bio at Wharton:

Graeme Rodaughan

Mike Bryant (21:04:56) :
My second problem is that your name is just plain scary. Yyzdnl, who would really select such a strange screen name?

Google “Cthulhu”…. Lovecraftian names beckon…

Classic and predictable. The Alarmists fire right out with ad hominem and specious attacks. They don’t like the logo, there are typos, and the dude is in marketing!!!
Dr. J. Scott Armstrong is the most distinguished, accomplished, and awarded expert in forecasting in the world. He is marketing professor at The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. The Wharton School!!! His home page is here:
But the real issue is not who but what. The finding of the world’s foremost expert in forecasting are that climate model forecasts are less accurate than naive models of no change. As is well-known, IPCC, GISS, and other modelers have failed in their predictions. Armstrong points out that they have also failed in their methodology.
“…there are no scientific forecasts to support global warming.”
Whatever the CCM’s are, they are not scientific forecasts. They violate the principles of scientific forecasting. Ergo, they cannot be relied upon.
It is tragically absurd to lend any credence to CCM’s that are unscientific and produce bad predictions, some so bad that they forecast the End of Creation.
Yet the US Congress just allocated $140 million to these unscientific CCM’s and threaten a variety of economic hardships on all of us, based upon reliance on junk science (not to mention “economic stimulus” which is an oxymoron in this case).
Absolutely outrageous. Bad government gone rancid. Pathetic and intolerable.


The logo reminds me (with very different colors) of the Martian flag in “Mars Attacks”… but I can see where a logo consultant could sell it: Three primary shapes, strong color contract, denotes a sense of fundamentals with strength etc etc..
The fact that a group devoted to forecasting says the AGW models are bunkum for forecasting AND the fact that the modelers have already issued ‘we do not forecast’ disclaimers give a big club to use any time some future prediction is made.
Sidebar: Yeah, Colombo, but with a better suit and sense of precision and detail … maybe a bit of Monk mixed in? And a “Don’t even think of trying to put one over on him” Sam Spade core? (Picturing the end of Maltese Falcon where Sam Spade hands the goods over to the cops and details the intrigues he saw being pulled and how he turned them to his advantage… yeah that fits.)


Inhofe had Armstrong give testimony once before the Senate EE committee. Since nobody seemed to be paying attention then, what makes anybody think saying it again will have a greater impact?
The alarmists now control both houses of Congress and the Presidency and they, perhaps rightly, believe they have their best opportunity since the 1970’s to pass crippling anti-business, anti-energy, anti-freedom, and downright stupid legislation to “Save the Planet” (Oh, and to take control of everything else while they are at it).
I say let them dig their hole deeper. It will take a while to dig us back out, but there will be no doubt about the wrongness of their actions.

P Folkens

Robert Bateman (20:45:47) : . . . looking back through the geologic record . . .
There are readily available studies on the Younger-Dryas. Several I’ve read have very high resolution/precision. If I recall correctly Bilal Haq (NAS) and colleagues have some tight sea level reconstructions of the period.
We are presently in nothing like the Younger-Dryas of the Latest Pleistocene or related early Holocene events. Although I believe Malinkovitch cycles were involved (as opposed to sun spots per se), the best take I’ve seen on those events is the cold water rush from the Laurentide lake dam failure and its affect on the North Atlantic termohaline system (Gulf Stream). (Or Lake Agassiz, but that was too far inland to so dramatically affect the oceanic thermohaline circulation.) Though open to the possibility, I’m not buying the comet theory (yet).

Paul Farley

I hate to say I wish for it to get colder still but I think this is what it’s going to take to consign AGW to the dustbin of history. I think AGW will come to be regarded as the largest confidence trick ever performed on the world.
yyz = Toronto Pearson International
dnl = Daniel Field Aiport, Georgia
I need to get a life.

Just want truth...

“Chris V. (20:55:22) :
BTW, Dr. Armstrong is a Professor of Marketing.”
You, of course, left out the rest of his CV. An innocent oversight on your part?
This is a link to his CV :
By the way, Al Gore is a politician.


Chris V. (20:55:22) : 7. The climate system is stable. ???
They’ve never heard of the ice ages??
REPLY: Forecasting using time series – numbers know no allegiance to profession. – Anthony

It is also the case that forecasting depends on picking a time scale. I spend lots of time forecasting directions of stocks and markets (rather well too). One of the first things you must do it pick your time scale since on one time scale things may be going down (2 year bear market) but Right Now they are going up (bear market rally).
What the IIF folks did was test stability in the short run of hundred year time scale, and found it stable (the relevant time scale to AGW). Your examples look at 10,000 to 100,000 year time scales and see variability. Yes, you can both be right, since you are working on different time scales.
You are standing 100 miles from the mountain range and saying “Look, the mountains go up and down!” while they are standing in a flat mountain meadow saying “This place is flat enough to build a house.” Both are right.
Per the Younger Dryas: There is good evidence that what caused it was a rock fall from space onto the ice sheet of North America. I don’t think they model “the big rock from space did it” in the AGW computer models… This would also argue that sunspot proxies for the Younger Dryas would be short on value… @Robert Bateman

Neil Crafter

Chris V. (21:35:38) :
Neil Crafter (21:11:45) :
“They can critique anything they want.
If I wanted to know about CGMs, I’d ask a climate modeller.
If I wanted to know how to convince people to spend $3 a bottle for something they can get free from the tap, I’d ask a marketing professor.”
Mr V
It is in the assumption that the models are indeed forecasts where the problem lies, and despite what you say, that is exactly the way that Hansen et al have allowed them to be portrayed in the mainstream media, who have lapped them up, the more catastrophic the better. If you ask a climate modeller he would most likely say his model is very robust and useful would he not? At least a marketer is marked for his results – if he is good and sells a lot of his product he will stay in work, if not he will be out on his ear.


So, once again: if the simulations faults are so ominous, why didn’t anybody publish anything consistent about these “faults”? Why another op-ed instead of solid science?
Maybe that’s because news from the climate itself are not really cooling-like. Check for example the UAH global temperature:
(click the 1 km temp, which is the closest to surface temps)
or the recent evolution of arctic:
(needless to remind you 2006-2007 was a record lowest winter maximum)
or what’s happening in the antarctic:
not to mention the state of the Wilkins ice shelf, which is about to separate form antarctic land and go…well somewhere in the oceans:
“The peninsula has been experiencing extraordinary warming in the past 50 years of 2.5°C.”
Don’t worry, that shelf is not big-only the size of Connecticut. Compare the situation in June, July (remember it is winter there at this time) and in December: