Armstrong, JS

---<a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/kesten-green">https://www.desmogblog.com/kesten-green</a>https://www.desmogblog.com/scott-armstrongno link imgCredentials
Ph.D.,  Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. [1], [2]M.S., Industrial Administration, Carnegie Mellon University. [1], [2]B.S.,  Industrial Engineering, Lehigh University. [1], [2]B.A., Applied Science, Lehigh University. [1], [2]Background
J. Scott Armstrong Ph.D is a marketing professor at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. According to his website, Armstrong's work focuses mainly on forecasting methods, strategic planning, survey research, and research methods.
Armstrong was the editor of Principles of Forecasting and the author of Long-Range Forecasting and Principles of Forecasting. He is also the co-founder of forecastingprinciples.com.
Stance on Climate Change
When Armstrong extended “The Climate Challenge” to Al Gore in June, 2007, he based his forecasts on “the naive (no-change) model; that is, the forecasts would be the same as the most recent year prior to the forecasts.”
Key Quotes
“We published a peer-reviewed paper showing that the forecasting procedures used by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change violated 72 of 89 relevant principles (e.g., 'provide full disclosure of methods'). The IPCC has been unable to explain why it violated such principles. In response, we developed a model that follows the principles. Because the climate is complex and poorly understood, our model predicts that global average temperatures will not change.” [3]
“We concluded that there are no scientific forecasts that support long-term global warming, nor any that it would prove dangerous if it occurred, and none showing that cost-effective policies could stop warming. No one has provided evidence to challenge our conclusions. In fact, a leading global warming alarmist has been careful to say that the IPCC does not provide forecasts, only scenarios. In other words, the role of the IPCC is that of a storyteller.” [13]
“I actually try not to learn a lot about climate change.” [16]
Key Deeds
March 23, 2017
The Heartland Institute awarded a “Lifetime Achievement Award in Climate Science” to J. Scott Armstrong between dinner keynote presentations at the Twelfth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC12). DeSmog captured audio of Armstrong's acceptance speech, where he brought up a story on how he had made a visit to the 9/11 museum the previous summer. [25], [26]“I cry easily,” Armstrong said. “When I got to the part about the firemen […] you know […] that’s their duty. They go in there, and that’s what you guys do.”In addition to receiving his award, Armstrong also spoke on a Heartland Institute panel on “Climate Politics and Policy” on the first day of the conference: [27]
February 23, 2017Scott Armstrong was a signatory of a petition (PDF) organized by Richard Lindzen of the Cato Institute urging President Donald Trump to pull the United States out of the United Nations international convention on climate change (UNFCCC). [23]
“In just a few weeks, more than 300 eminent scientists and other qualified individuals from around the world have signed the petition below,” Lindzen wrote in the letter. [23]
DeSmog investigated the list, and found that only a small handful of the signatories could be considered “even remotely ‘qualified’ or ‘eminent’ — but not in the field of climate science.” The list included individuals “interested in climate,” and one signatory who only identified as an “emailer who wished to sign the petition” while some signers provided no affiliation or address whatsoever. [24]
August, 2016
Scott Armstrong is listed as a “Founding Member” of group named Climate Exit (Clexit) led by climate change denier Christopher Monckton. According to Clexit's founding statement (PDF), “The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade. Man does not and cannot control the climate.” [19], [20]Desmog reports on how the group grew in the wake of the UK's decision to leave the EU. A key member of Clexit's “60 well-informed science, business and economic leaders” is Hugh Morgan, a former board member of the Reserve Bank of Australia and former CEO of Western Mining Corporation with close ties to Australia's Liberal party. [21], [22]
According to Clexit's founding statement: 
“If the Paris climate accord is ratified, or enforced locally by compliant governments, it will strangle the leading economies of the world with pointless carbon taxes and costly climate and energy policies, all with no sound basis in evidence or science […]” [20]
June 11-12, 2015
J. Scott Armstrong was a speaker on Panel 2: “Climate Science and Accurate Data,” at the Heartland Institute’s Tenth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC10) in Washington, D.C., with Anthony Watts and Roy Spencer. [17]View J. Scott Armstrong’s Panel 2 presentation at the Heartland Institute’s ICCC10, below: [18]


March, 2015
J. Scott Armstrong published an article in the Washington Times defending himself and fellow climate change skeptic Willie Soon. According to Armstrong, “Other than salaries from our employers, Mr. Soon, co-author Kesten Green and I received no money for our two papers at issue.” [13]
December, 2014
Scott Armstrong is a contributor to the book Climate Change: The Facts published by the Institute of Public Affairs and featuring “22 essays on the science, politics and economics of the climate change debate.” The Institute of Public Affairs, while not revealing most of its funders, is known to have received funding from mining magnate Gina Rinehart and at least one major tobacco company.[14]
The book includes essays and articles from a range of climate change skeptics, with contributors including the following:
Alan MoranAndrew BoltAnthony WattsBernard LewinChristopher EssexDonna LaframboiseGarth W. PaltridgeIan PlimerJ. Scott ArmstrongJames DelingpoleJennifer MarohasyJoanne NovaJohn AbbotKesten GreenMark SteynNigel LawsonPatrick J. MichaelsRichard S. LindzenRobert M. CarterRoss McKitrickRupert DarwallStewart FranksWillie SoonAccording to Editor Alan Moran in a post at Catallaxy Files blog on Climate Change: the facts 2014,  Scott Armstrong and Kesten Green's contribution to the book was to “test the predictive validity of the global warming hypothesis and find it wanting. They point out that many other alarms have been raised over the past 200 years, none of which have proved to have substance. Most of the alarms that led governments into taking actions actually created harm and none provided benefits.” [15]
January 27, 2012
Armstrong signed a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed titled “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.” [4]
Other climate change skeptics who signed include Claude Allègre, Jan Breslow, William Happer, William Kininmonth, Richard Lindzen, James McGrath, Rodney Nichols, Burt Rutan, Harrison H. Schmitt, Nir Shaviv, Edward David, Michael Kelly, Henk Tennekes, and Antonino Zichichi.
Media transparency found that the Op-Ed had misrepresented the position of Yale economist William Nordhaus. SkepticalScience also did a comprehensive examination of the signatories and found that few of them had published anything in peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change. [5], [6]
May, 2010
Armstrong was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 2010 International Conference on Climate Change. [7]
His speech was titled “Global Warming: A Scientific Forecasting Controversyor a Political Movement?” [8]
March 30, 2009
Armstrong's signature is displayed alongside a full-page ad funded by the CATO institute that appeared in numerous newspapers including the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune in 2009.
The ad criticizes President Obama's declaration that “few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change,” stating that “with all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.” It goes on to claim that “there has been no net global warming for over a decade,” and that the dangers of climate change are “grossly overstated.” [9]
March, 2009
Armstrong presented his research paper (co-authored by fellow skeptics Willie Soon and Kesten Green) on forecasting polar bear populations at the Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change.
The paper, titled “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit,” was published in Marketing Papers in 2008 and criticized projections of declining polar bear populations. 
A rebuttal of the paper by numerous scientists was published at Interfaces. [10]
March, 2008
Armstrong was a registered speaker at the Heartland Institute's 2008 International Conference on Climate Change.
January 30, 2008
Scott Armstrong, who co-authored a paper with Kesten Green and Willie Soon on polar bears, testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee on the subject of climate change:
June, 2007
In June, 2007, Armstrong extended a “Global Warming Challenge” to Al Gore. Although Al Gore declined the bet, Armstrong continued to track the hypothetical outcome on his website theclimatebet.com; he maintains that average temperatures will remain constant or drop rather than rise. [11]Armstrong continues to use theclimatebet.com as a forum to post his research.
Affiliations
Kesten Green, Willie Soon — Co-authored studies on climate change, and testified before congress on the subject of climate change. Green also serves as “advisor” to Armstrong's website, theclimatebet.com.Climate Exit (Clexit) — ”Founding Member.”  [19]Publications
Scott Armstrong, Willie Soon, and Kesten Green released an “unpublished working paper” arguing that the current forecast data on polar bear populations is inadequate for making a decision as to whether polar bears should be listed as a threatened species under the US Endangered Species Act.
While the polar bear paper is not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, it has appeared on websites such as the Science and Public Policy Institute website, Spiked Online, and various blogs.
His report was critiqued by the science writers at Realclimate.org who accuse Armstrong of having read “none of the primary literature,” only one chapter of the IPCC report and only “an un-peer reviewed hatchet job on the Stern Report” (a 2006 report on the economic impact of global warming completed by the British government). [12]
He also published a more recent paper: with Kesten Green in 2011 titled “Effects of the global warming alarm: A forecasting project using the structured analogies method” (PDF). Although this paper does not appear to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, Green and Armstrong do claim to “seek peer review from others, especially with evidence that would challenge our findings or conclusions.”
Resources
“J. Scott Armstrong,” Wharton University of Pennsylvania (Marketing Department). Accessed February 1, 2012.
“Dr. J. Scott Armstrong,” (PDF) CV at Wharton  University of Pennsylvania, Marketing Department, January, 2012.
“Let's Deal in Science and Facts,” Wall Street Journal, November 19, 2010.
“No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” The Wall Street Journal, January 27, 2012.
“The Journal Hires Dentists To Do Heart Surgery,” Media Transparency, January 30, 2012.
“The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction,” SkepticalScience, January 31, 2012.
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: “J. Scott Armstrong.”
“4th International Conference on Climate Change” (PDF), The Heartland Institute. Accessed February 1, 2012, from University of Hartford server.
“Climate Change Reality,” The Cato Institute.
Steven C. Amstrup, Hal Caswell, Eric DeWeaver, Ian Stirling, David C. Douglas, Bruce G. Marcot, and Christine M. Hunter. “Rebuttal of 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit',” Interfaces, Vol. 39, No. 4 (July/August 2009).
“The Global Warming Challenge,” ClimateBet, June 16, 2007. Archived April 16, 2009.
“Green and Armstrong’s scientific forecast,” RealClimate, July 20, 2007.
J. Scott Armstrong. “Missing the mark on climate change skepticism: It’s not about the money, it’s about the science,” Washington Times, March 24, 2015.
“Institute of Public Affairs,” SourceWatch. Accessed May 27, 2015.
Alan Moran. “Climate Change: the facts 2014,” Catallaxy Files (blog), December 16, 2014. 
Kate Sheppard. “House Skeptic Fest Kind of a Let Down for Deniers,” Mother Jones, April 1, 2011.
“Speakers,” Heartland Institute. Archived June 30, 2015.
“Panel 2: Climate Science and Accurate Data with Anthony Watts, Roy Spencer, Ph.D., and J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D.,” Heartland Institute, June 11, 2015. Archived July 14, 2015.
“The Clexit Committee comprises” (PDF), Clexit.net. Archived.pdf on file at Desmog.
“After Brexit, Clexit” (PDF), Clexit.net. Archived .pdf on file at Desmog.
Graham Readfearn. “After Brexit, Climate Science Denialists Form New Group to Call for a Clexit,” Desmog, August 3, 2016.
“Hugh Morgan AO,” Australian Government Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Archived February 22, 2002. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/1ObOB
“PETITION” (PDF), February 23, 2017. Richard Lindzen. PDF Archived at DeSmog.
Graham Readfearn. “Climate Science Denier Richard Lindzen's List of 300 “Scientists” Sent to Trump Is the Usual Parade of Non-Experts,” DeSmog, February 27, 2017.
“DINNER KEYNOTES: ROBERT MENDELSOHN, PH.D. ROGER HELMER, MEP-UKIP,” ICCC12. Archived March 23, 2017.
Graham Readfearn. “Heartland Institute Award Winner Compares Work of Climate Science Deniers to 9/11 Firefighters,” DeSmog, March 23, 2017.
“SCOTT ARMSTRONG,” Climateconference.heartland.org. Archived April 6, 2017. Archive.is URL: https://archive.is/aYtWp
Other Resources
“J. Scott Armstrong,” SourceWatch Profile.
Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, CV (PDF) at Wharton University, as of November, 2011.
“J. Scott Amstrong,” Wikipedia profile.
J. Scott Armstrong, Kesten C. Green, Willie Soon.”Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit,” Science and Public Policy Institute, Monday, December 17, 2007.
“Research to date on Forecasting for the Manmade Global Warming Alarm Testimony to Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Committee on Science, Space and Technology – March 31, 2011” (PDF). 
Testimony Before U.S. House Committee on Climate Change, Climate Depot, March 31, 2011.
Forecasting Problems for Global Warming Alarmists, Environment & Climate News (a publication of the Heartland Institute), July 1, 2010.
“Interview of the author about Persuasive Advertising,” Fox News, May 25, 2010
“Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Forecasting Expert Asserts,” ScienceDaily, May 8, 2008.
“Professor Scott Armstrong Exposing Inaccuracies in Polar Bear Studies”. News of Interest.TV.
“Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Argue Forecasting Experts in INFORMS Journal” – INFORMS: The Institute For Operations Research and The Management Sciences”. Informs.
Amstrup A.J., Casswell H., DeWeaver E., Stirling I., Douglas D.C., Marcot B.G., Hunter C.M. (2009). “Rebuttal of “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit.” Interfaces 39: 353–369.
Profile image screenshot from YouTube, J. Scott Armstrong speaking on a panel at the Heartland Institute's 12th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC12).
Related PostsHeartland Institute Award Winner Compares Work of Climate Science Deniers to 9/11 FirefightersMarketing Professor Scott Armstrong at the New York Climate Change "Skeptics" Conferenceinterfaces<div class="articleMeta ja" style="margin-top: 8px; color: rgb(65, 65, 65); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, serif; font-size: 12px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="hlFld-Title"><div class="publicationContentTitle" style="margin-bottom: 30px;"><h1 class="chaptertitle" style="font-size: 18px; font-weight: normal; line-height: 20px;">Rebuttal of “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit”</h1></div></div><div class="copyrightStatement"><div class="articleMetaDrop publicationContentDropZone" data-pb-dropzone="articleMetaDropZone" style="margin-bottom: 14px;"><div class="publicationContentAuthors" style="margin-bottom: 19px;"><div class="contribDegrees"><a class="entryAuthor" href="http://pubsonline.informs.org/action/doSearch?text1=Amstrup%2C+Steven+C&field1=Contrib" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);">Steven C. Amstrup</a></div><div class="contribAff" style="margin-bottom: 10px;">US Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, Alaska 99508</div><div class="contribDegrees"><a class="entryAuthor" href="http://pubsonline.informs.org/action/doSearch?text1=Caswell%2C+Hal&field1=Contrib" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);">Hal Caswell</a></div><div class="contribAff" style="margin-bottom: 10px;">Biology Department, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543</div><div class="contribDegrees"><a class="entryAuthor" href="http://pubsonline.informs.org/action/doSearch?text1=DeWeaver%2C+Eric&field1=Contrib" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);">Eric DeWeaver</a></div><div class="contribAff" style="margin-bottom: 10px;">Atmospheric and Oceanic Science Department, University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland 20742</div><div class="contribDegrees"><a class="entryAuthor" href="http://pubsonline.informs.org/action/doSearch?text1=Stirling%2C+Ian&field1=Contrib" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);">Ian Stirling</a></div><div class="contribAff" style="margin-bottom: 10px;">Wildlife Research Division, Science and Technology Branch, Environment Canada, Edmonton, Alberta T6H 3S5, Canada</div><div class="contribDegrees"><a class="entryAuthor" href="http://pubsonline.informs.org/action/doSearch?text1=Douglas%2C+David+C&field1=Contrib" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);">David C. Douglas</a></div><div class="contribAff" style="margin-bottom: 10px;">US Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, Juneau, Alaska 99801</div><div class="contribDegrees"><a class="entryAuthor" href="http://pubsonline.informs.org/action/doSearch?text1=Marcot%2C+Bruce+G&field1=Contrib" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);">Bruce G. Marcot</a></div><div class="contribAff" style="margin-bottom: 10px;">USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon 97205</div><div class="contribDegrees"><a class="entryAuthor" href="http://pubsonline.informs.org/action/doSearch?text1=Hunter%2C+Christine+M&field1=Contrib" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);">Christine M. Hunter</a></div><div class="contribAff" style="margin-bottom: 10px;">Institute of Arctic Biology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775</div></div><div class="articleMetaDrop publicationContentDropZone publicationContentDropZone1" data-pb-dropzone="articleMetaDropZone1" style="margin-bottom: 14px;"><div class="publicationContentDoi">Permalink: <a href="https://doi.org/%7B0%7D" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);">https://doi.org/10.1287/inte.1090.0444</a></div><div class="publicationContentEpubDate dates">Published Online: April 22, 2009</div><div><div class="publicationContentPageRange">Page Range: 353 - 369</div></div><div class="publication-tabs ja publication-tabs-dropdown" style="color: rgb(65, 65, 65); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, serif; font-size: 12px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><div class="tabs tabs-widget"><ul class="tab-nav" role="tablist" style="padding-left: 1em; border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); clear: both; height: 34px; padding-top: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><li class="active" role="tab" aria-selected="true" style="display: inline-block; float: left; font-size: 14pt;"><a href="http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/abs/10.1287/inte.1090.0444" class="show-abstract" style="color: rgb(136, 136, 136); padding: 0px 11px; text-decoration-line: none; background-image: none; background-position: 0px 0px; background-size: initial; background-repeat: repeat; background-attachment: scroll; background-origin: initial; background-clip: initial; display: block; float: left; font-size: 16.8px; height: 30px; line-height: 28px; border-color: rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(204, 204, 204) rgb(255, 255, 255); border-style: solid; border-width: 1px; margin-top: 3px; cursor: default;">Abstract</a></li><li role="tab" aria-selected="false" style="display: inline-block; float: left; font-size: 14pt;"><a href="http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/ref/10.1287/inte.1090.0444" class="show-references" style="color: rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 5px 10px; text-decoration-line: none; background: inherit; display: block; float: left; font-size: 16.8px; height: 24px; line-height: 22px;">Refs.</a></li><li role="tab" aria-selected="false" style="display: inline-block; float: left; font-size: 14pt;"><a href="http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/citedby/10.1287/inte.1090.0444" style="color: rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 5px 10px; text-decoration-line: none; background: inherit; display: block; float: left; font-size: 16.8px; height: 24px; line-height: 22px;">Cited by</a></li><li role="tab" aria-selected="false" style="display: inline-block; float: left; font-size: 14pt;"><a href="http://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/pdf/10.1287/inte.1090.0444" class="show-pdf" target="_self" style="color: rgb(204, 204, 204); padding: 5px 10px; text-decoration-line: none; background: inherit; display: block; float: left; font-size: 16.8px; height: 24px; line-height: 22px;">PDF</a></li></ul><div class="tab-content "><a id="top-content-scroll" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);" /><div class="tab tab-pane active"><a id="top-content-scroll" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);" /><a id="top-content-scroll" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);" /><a id="top-content-scroll" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);" /><article class="article" style="padding: 0px 0px 1px 2px;"><a id="top-content-scroll" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);" /><div class="hlFld-Abstract"><a id="top-content-scroll" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);" /><a name="abstract" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);" /><div class="sectionInfo abstractSectionHeading" style="overflow: hidden; padding-top: 15px; padding-bottom: 10px;"><a name="abstract" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);" /><a name="abstract" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);" /><a name="abstract" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);" /><div class="sectionHeading" style="float: left; font-size: 18px;"><a name="abstract" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);" /><a name="abstract" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);" /><a name="abstract" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);">Abstract</a></div></div><div class="abstractSection abstractInFull">Observed declines in the Arctic sea ice have resulted in a variety of negative effects on polar bears (Ursus maritimus). Projections for additional future declines in sea ice resulted in a proposal to list polar bears as a threatened species under the United States Endangered Species Act. To provide information for the Department of the Interior's listing-decision process, the US Geological Survey (USGS) produced a series of nine research reports evaluating the present and future status of polar bears throughout their range. In response, Armstrong et al. [Armstrong, J. S., K. C. Green, W. Soon. 2008. Polar bear population forecasts: A public-policy forecasting audit. Interfaces 38(5) 382–405], which we will refer to as AGS, performed an audit of two of these nine reports. AGS claimed that the general circulation models upon which the USGS reports relied were not valid forecasting tools, that USGS researchers were not objective or lacked independence from policy decisions, that they did not utilize all available information in constructing their forecasts, and that they violated numerous principles of forecasting espoused by AGS. AGS (p. 382) concluded that the two USGS reports were “unscientific and inconsequential to decision makers.” We evaluate the AGS audit and show how AGS are mistaken or misleading on every claim. We provide evidence that general circulation models are useful in forecasting future climate conditions and that corporate and government leaders are relying on these models to do so. We clarify the strict independence of the USGS from the listing decision. We show that the allegations of failure to follow the principles of forecasting espoused by AGS are either incorrect or are based on misconceptions about the Arctic environment, polar bear biology, or statistical and mathematical methods. We conclude by showing that the AGS principles of forecasting are too ambiguous and subjective to be used as a reliable basis for auditing scientific investigations. In summary, we show that the AGS audit offers no valid criticism of the USGS conclusion that global warming poses a serious threat to the future welfare of polar bears and that it only serves to distract from reasoned public-policy debate.</div></div><div class="abstractKeywords"><kwd-group xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance">Keywords: <a href="http://pubsonline.informs.org/keyword/Polar+Bear" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);">polar bear</a> ; <a href="http://pubsonline.informs.org/keyword/Ursus+Maritimus" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);">Ursus maritimus</a> ; <a href="http://pubsonline.informs.org/keyword/Global+Warming" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);">global warming</a> ; <a href="http://pubsonline.informs.org/keyword/Climate+Models" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);">climate models</a> ; <a href="http://pubsonline.informs.org/keyword/Forecasting+Principles" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);">forecasting principles</a> ; <a href="http://pubsonline.informs.org/keyword/Forecasts" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);">forecasts</a> ; <a href="http://pubsonline.informs.org/keyword/Projections" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);">projections</a> ; <a href="http://pubsonline.informs.org/keyword/Audit" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);">audit</a> ; <a href="http://pubsonline.informs.org/keyword/Endangered+Species+Act" style="color: rgb(2, 54, 153);">Endangered Species Act</a></kwd-group></div></article></div></div></div></div>==

J. Scott Armstrong is a marketing professor at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. He is a self-proclaimed "pioneer" of forecasting methods, as well as an avid <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Climate_change_skeptic" title="Climate change skeptic" class="mw-redirect">climate change skeptic</a>. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/J.Scott_Armstrong#cite_note-Armstrong-0">[1]</a> Armstrong is a speaker at the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/International_Conference_on_Climate_Change%282009%29" title="International Conference on Climate Change (2009)" class="mw-redirect">International Conference on Climate Change (2009)</a>, organized by the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute" title="Heartland Institute">Heartland Institute</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Think_tank" title="Think tank" class="mw-redirect">think tank</a>. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/J._Scott_Armstrong#cite_note-1">[2]</a>

According to his CV, Armstrong's educational background is primarily in marketing, with bachelors degrees from Lehigh University in "industrial engineering" in 1960 and "applied science" in 1959. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/J._Scott_Armstrong#cite_note-2">[3]</a>

<h2>Contents</h2>

[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/J._Scott_Armstrong#" class="internal" id="togglelink">hide</a>] </div>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/J._Scott_Armstrong#Forecasting_methods">1 Forecasting methods</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/J._Scott_Armstrong#Articles_and_resources">2 Articles and resources</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/J._Scott_Armstrong#Related_SourceWatch_articles">2.1 Related SourceWatch articles</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/J._Scott_Armstrong#References">2.2 References</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/J._Scott_Armstrong#External_resources">2.3 External resources</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-3 tocsection-6"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/J._Scott_Armstrong#Articles_and_Presentations_by_Armstrong">2.3.1 Articles and Presentations by Armstrong</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-7"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/J._Scott_Armstrong#External_articles">2.4 External articles</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2>Forecasting methods</h2>

Armstrong is a co-founder of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Journal_of_Forecasting&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Journal of Forecasting (page does not exist)">Journal of Forecasting</a>, the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Journal_of_Forecasting&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="International Journal of Forecasting (page does not exist)">International Journal of Forecasting</a>, the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=International_Symposium_on_Forecasting&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="International Symposium on Forecasting (page does not exist)">International Symposium on Forecasting</a>, and <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Forecastingprinciples.com&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Forecastingprinciples.com (page does not exist)">forecastingprinciples.com</a>. He is also a co-developer of new methods of forecasting including rule-based forecasting, causal forces for extrapolation, simulated interaction, and structured analogies. Most of his forecasting deals with business or political trends. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/J._Scott_Armstrong#cite_note-Armstrong-0">[1]</a>

The scientific writers of <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=RealClimate&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="RealClimate (page does not exist)">RealClimate</a> have critiqued Armstrong's application of his forecasting methods to climate change. They point out that his critique was based on reading "none of the primary literature," just one chapter of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change" title="Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a> (IPCC) report and "an un-peer reviewed hatchet job on the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stern_Review_on_the_Economics_of_Climate_Change&action=edit&redlink=1" class="new" title="Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (page does not exist)">Stern report</a>," an influential 2006 report conducted for the British government. Armstrong and his co-author, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kesten_Green" title="Kesten Green">Kesten Green</a>, "appear to have talked to none" of the climate researchers or modeling groups, RealClimate added. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/J._Scott_Armstrong#cite_note-3">[4]</a>

<h2>Articles and resources</h2>

<h3>Related SourceWatch articles</h3>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Global_warming_skeptics" title="Global warming skeptics">Global warming skeptics</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute" title="Heartland Institute">Heartland Institute</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29" title="International Conference on Climate Change (2009)" class="mw-redirect">International Conference on Climate Change (2009)</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kesten_Green" title="Kesten Green">Kesten Green</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/SourceWatch:Project:Creating_Articles_on_Sponsors_and_Speakers_at_The_2008_International_Conference_on_Climate_Change" title="SourceWatch:Project:Creating Articles on Sponsors and Speakers at The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change">SourceWatch:Project:Creating Articles on Sponsors and Speakers at The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change</a></li>

</ul>

<h3>References</h3>

<li id="cite_note-Armstrong-0">↑ <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/J.Scott_Armstrong#cite_ref-Armstrong_0-0">1.0</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/J.Scott_Armstrong#cite_ref-Armstrong_0-1">1.1</a> <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://jscottarmstrong.com/">"J. Scott Armstrong"</a>, J. Scott Armstrong's University of Pennsylvania website, accessed February 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/J._Scott_Armstrong#cite_ref-1">↑</a> "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/speakers.html">Speakers</a>," Heartland Institute website, accessed January 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/J._Scott_Armstrong#cite_ref-2">↑</a> "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://qbox.wharton.upenn.edu/documents/mktg/cv/ResumeJSA-1-12-09.pdf">J. Scott Armstrong CV</a>," J. Scott Armstrong's University of Pennsylvania website, accessed March 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/J._Scott_Armstrong#cite_ref-3">↑</a> Gavin Schmidt, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/green-and-armstrongs-scientific-forecast/,">"Green and Armstrong’s scientific forecast"</a>, RealClimate Blog, July 2007.</li>

</ol>

<h3>External resources</h3>

<h4>Articles and Presentations by Armstrong</h4>

<ul>

<li>J. Scott Armstrong, <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.heartland.org/bin/media/newyork09/PowerPoint/Scott_Armstrong.ppt">"Serious Problems with IPCC Forecasting Procedures - A Forecaster’s View of Climate Change: Methodology Also Counts"</a>, Presentation to the Heartland Institute's International Conference on Climate Change (2009), March 9, 2009. (PowerPoint)</li>

</ul>

<h3>External articles</h3>

<table style=" margin: 0.5em 0.57em 0.5em 0.7em; border-collapse: collapse; background: #fffacd; border: 1px solid #dad26d;"><tbody><tr><td style=" width: 100%; padding: .25em .25em 0.25em .25em;">This article is a <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/SourceWatch:Find_or_fix_a_stub" title="SourceWatch:Find or fix a stub">stub</a>. You can <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/SourceWatch:Find_or_fix_a_stub" title="SourceWatch:Find or fix a stub">help</a> by <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=J._Scott_Armstrong&action=edit">expanding it</a>.</td><td>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>

<div id="mw-normal-catlinks" class="mw-normal-catlinks"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Special:Categories" title="Special:Categories">Categories</a>:

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Climate_change" title="Category:Climate change">Climate change</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Stubs" title="Category:Stubs">Stubs</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Global_warming_skeptics" title="Category:Global warming skeptics">Global warming skeptics</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:People" title="Category:People">People</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

===

Kesten C. Green is a Senior Research Fellow with the Business and Economic Forecasting Unit at Monash University, <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Australia" title="Australia">Australia</a>. He began his master's studies in Management Science at Victoria University, and received a doctoral degree from Victoria Management School at Victoria University of Wellington. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kesten_Green#cite_note-CV-0">[1]</a> A 2004 announcement of his joining Monash staff described Green's research as "challeng[ing] conventional methods of predicting outcomes of conflict situations including industrial disputes, boardroom battles and war with terrorists." <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kesten_Green#cite_note-1">[2]</a>

Green is a speaker at the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/International_Conference_on_Climate_Change_%282009%29" title="International Conference on Climate Change (2009)" class="mw-redirect">International Conference on Climate Change (2009)</a> organized by the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute" title="Heartland Institute">Heartland Institute</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Think_tank" title="Think tank" class="mw-redirect">think tank</a>. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kesten_Green#cite_note-2">[3]</a>

<h2>Contents</h2>

[<a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kesten_Green#" class="internal" id="togglelink">hide</a>] </div>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kesten_Green#On_global_warming">1 On global warming</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kesten_Green#Contact_information">2 Contact information</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-1 tocsection-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kesten_Green#Articles_and_resources">3 Articles and resources</a>

<ul>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-4"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kesten_Green#Related_SourceWatch_articles">3.1 Related SourceWatch articles</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-5"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kesten_Green#References">3.2 References</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-6"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kesten_Green#External_resources">3.3 External resources</a></li>

<li class="toclevel-2 tocsection-7"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kesten_Green#External_articles">3.4 External articles</a></li>

</ul>

</li>

</ul>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

<h2>On global warming</h2>

"Forecasts of global warming and of the extinction of polar bears are not derived from scientific forecasting methods and are not credible," Green's CV states. <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kesten_Green#cite_note-CV-0">[1]</a>

According to his Heartland Institute profile, "Green became interested in climate forecasting when he realized the dire predictions of the <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change" title="Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change">Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change</a> and others might result in policies that would cause great harm to people." <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kesten_Green#cite_note-3">[4]</a>

<h2>Contact information</h2>

Website: <a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="http://www.kestencgreen.com/">http://www.kestencgreen.com/</a>

<h2>Articles and resources</h2>

<h3>Related SourceWatch articles</h3>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute" title="Heartland Institute">Heartland Institute</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/J._Scott_Armstrong" title="J. Scott Armstrong">J. Scott Armstrong</a></li>

</ul>

<h3>References</h3>

<li id="cite_note-CV-0">↑ <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kesten_Green#cite_ref-CV_0-0">1.0</a> <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kesten_Green#cite_ref-CV_0-1">1.1</a> "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.kestencgreen.com/kgcv.pdf">Curriculum Vitae (pdf)</a>," Dr Kesten C Green website, accessed March 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-1"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kesten_Green#cite_ref-1">↑</a> Press release, "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.monash.edu.au/news/monashmemo/stories/20040818/kesten.html">Conflict forecaster joins faculty</a>," Monash University, August 18, 2004.</li>

<li id="cite_note-2"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kesten_Green#cite_ref-2">↑</a> "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.heartland.org/events/NewYork09/speakers.html">Speakers</a>," Heartland Institute website, accessed January 2009.</li>

<li id="cite_note-3"><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Kesten_Green#cite_ref-3">↑</a> "<a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.heartland.org/about/profileresults.html?profile=572CD9A9863367CCD45EC885581FC4CD&directory=3B532E2483EE9165FD810C4DF38DBAEA">Personnel details: Kesten Green</a>," Heartland Institute website, accessed March 2009.</li>

</ol>

<h3>External resources</h3>

<h3>External articles</h3>

<table style=" margin: 0.5em 0.57em 0.5em 0.7em; border-collapse: collapse; background: #fffacd; border: 1px solid #dad26d;"><tbody><tr><td style=" width: 100%; padding: .25em .25em 0.25em .25em;">This article is a <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/SourceWatch:Find_or_fix_a_stub" title="SourceWatch:Find or fix a stub">stub</a>. You can <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/SourceWatch:Find_or_fix_a_stub" title="SourceWatch:Find or fix a stub">help</a> by <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Kesten_Green&action=edit">expanding it</a>.</td><td>

</td></tr></tbody></table>

</div>

<ul>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Climate_change" title="Category:Climate change">Climate change</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:Stubs" title="Category:Stubs">Stubs</a></li>

<li><a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Category:People" title="Category:People">People</a></li>

</ul>

</div>

---

mann:

climate models

<h1 class="title-blog">FiveThirtyEight: The Number of Things Nate Silver Gets Wrong About Climate Change</h1>

If you're a science or math geek like me, you can't help but like Nate Silver. He's the fellow nerd who made good. His site <a href="http://FiveThirtyEight.com" target="_hplink">FiveThirtyEight.com</a> is a must for any serious polling buff, and he regularly graces the leading talk shows with his insightful if wonky commentary. So you can imagine how excited I was a year ago when Nate's assistant contacted me, indicating that he wanted to come to State College, PA -- the "happy valley" -- to interview me for his new book on "forecasting and prediction."

Nate, I was told, was working on a chapter about global warming. He sought me out because he felt my expertise would make me an "excellent guide to the history of climate modeling". He also expressed interest in my own upcoming (since published) book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars/dp/023115254X/">The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars</a> which details my experiences at the center of the climate change debate. Needless to say, I was very much looking forward to the meeting

.

And so it was on a crisp early November day that Nate arrived at my office in the Walker Building of the Penn State campus. We exchanged pleasantries and proceeded to engage in a vigorous, in-depth discussion of everything from climate models and global warming to the role of scientific uncertainty, and the campaign by industry front groups to discredit climate science (something that is the focus of my own book). As I saw Nate off, I insisted he sample the Penn State Creamery's famous ice cream before leaving town. I tweeted excitedly about my meeting with him, and by the end of the day Nate had even added me to his relatively short list of twitter followees. Certain our discussion had been productive and informative, I awaited Nate's book with great anticipation.

And so I was rather crestfallen earlier this summer when I finally got a peek at a review copy of The Signal and the Noise: Why So Many Predictions Fail -- but Some Don't. It's not that Nate revealed himself to be a climate change denier; He accepts that human-caused climate change is real, and that it represents a challenge and potential threat. But he falls victim to a fallacy that has become all too common among those who view the issue through the prism of economics rather than science. Nate conflates problems of prediction in the realm of human behavior -- where there are no fundamental governing 'laws' and any "predictions" are potentially laden with subjective and untestable assumptions -- with problems such as climate change, which are governed by laws of physics, like the greenhouse effect, that are true whether or not you choose to believe them.

Nate devotes far too much space to the highly questionable claims of a University of Pennsylvania marketing Professor named J. Scott Armstrong. Armstrong made a name for himself in denialist circles back in 2007 by denouncing climate models as having no predictive value at all. Armstrong's arguments were fundamentally flawed, belied by a large body of primary scientific literature -- with which Armstrong was apparently unfamiliar -- demonstrating that climate model projections clearly do in fact out-perform naive predictions which ignore the effect of increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. As <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/green-and-armstrongs-scientific-forecast/">discussed in detail</a> by my RealClimate.org co-founder, NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt, Armstrong simply didn't understand the science well enough to properly interpret, let alone, assess, the predictive skill of climate model predictions.

That Nate would parrot Armstrong's flawed arguments is a major disappointment, especially because there are some obvious red flags that even the most cursory research should have turned up. A simple check of either <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/J._Scott_Armstrong">SourceWatch</a> or fossil fuel industry watchdog <a href="http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1317">ExxonSecrets</a>, reveals that Armstrong is a well-known climate change denier with <a href="http://heartland.org/j-scott-armstrong">close ties</a> to fossil fuel industry front groups like the Heartland Institute, which earlier this year <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/11/heartland-institute-insurance-billboard_n_1510031.html">campaigned</a> to compare people who accept the reality of climate change to the Unabomber, and <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/02/14/425354/internal-documents-climate-denier-heartland-institute-plans-global-warming-curriculum-for-k-12-schools/">secretly planned</a> to infiltrate elementary schools across the country with industry-funded climate change denial propaganda. I suspect that Nate's failing here arises from a sort of cultural bias. There is a whole community of pundits with origins in economics and marketing who seem more than happy to dismiss the laws of physics when they conflict with their philosophy of an unregulated market. Nate may not share that philosophy, but he was educated by those who do.

Nate Silver was trained in the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_school_%28economics%29">Chicago school of Economics</a>, famously characterized by its philosophy of free market fundamentalism. In addition to courses from Milton Friedman, Nate might very well have taken a course from University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt, known largely for his provocative 2005 book Freakonomics and its even more audacious 2009 sequel Super Freakonomics -- a book that, perhaps better than any other, serves as a cautionary tale of the dangers that lurk when academics attempt to draw sweeping conclusions in fields well outside their area of training. In Super Freakonomics as you might guess, Levitt drew questionable conclusions about climate change and related energy issues based on an extrapolation of principles of economics way, way, way, outside their domain of applicability. Even some very basic physics calculations, for example, reveal that his dismissal of solar energy as a viable alternative to fossil fuel energy in combating climate change because of possible waste heat is total nonsense. Ray Pierrehumbert, a chaired professor himself at the University of Chicago, in the Department of Geosciences, pointed this and other serious errors out to Levitt in an <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/">open letter</a> that concluded with a campus map showing how easy it would have been for Levitt to walk over to his office to discuss his ideas and, presumably, avoid the serious pitfalls that ended up undermining much of what he ended up saying in his book about climate change and energy policy.

Unlike Levitt, Nate did talk to the scientists (I know. I'm one of them!). But he didn't listen quite as carefully as he should have. When it came to areas like climate change well outside his own expertise, he to some extent fell into the same "one trick pony" trap that was the downfall of Levitt (and arguably others like Malcolm Gladwell in The Tipping Point). That is, he repeatedly invokes the alluring, but fundamentally unsound, principle that simple ideas about forecasting and prediction from one field, like economics, can readily be appropriated and applied to completely different fields, without a solid grounding in the principles, assumptions, and methods of those fields. It just doesn't work that way (though Nate, to his credit, does at least allude to that in his discussion of Armstrong's evaluation of climate forecasts).

As a result, Nate's chapter on climate change (Chapter 12: "A Climate of Healthy Skepticism") is marred by straw man claims that don't stand up to scrutiny. These include the assertion that (a) climate scientist James Hansen's famous 1988 predictions overestimated global warming (<a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/">they didn't</a>), that (b) "the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) settles on just one forecast that is endorsed by the entire group" (pure nonsense -- even the most casual reading of the IPCC reports reveals that great care taken to emphasize the <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-4.html">non-trivial spread </a>among model predictions, and to denote regions where there is <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-10-9.html">substantial disagreement</a> between the projections from different models) and that (c) "relatively little is understood" about the El Nino cycle (here I imagine that Nate might have misinterpreted our own discussion about the matter; I explained in our discussion that there are still open questions about how climate change will influence the El Nino phenomenon -- but that hardly means that we know "relatively little" about the phenomenon itself! In fact, we know <a href="http://www.ucar.edu/communications/factsheets/elnino/">quite a bit</a> about it). Finally, and perhaps most troubling (d) while Nate's chapter title explicitly acknowledges the importance of distinguishing "signal" from "noise", and Nate does gives this topic some lip service, he repeatedly falls victim to the fallacy that tracking year-to-year fluctuations in temperature (the noise) can tell us something about predictions of global warming trends (the signal). They <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/">can't</a> -- they <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/what-the-ipcc-models-really-say/">really can't</a>.

Nate's view of uncertainty, and its implications for climate model predictions, is particularly misguided. He asserts that the projections of the IPCC forecasts have been "too aggressive", but that is simply wrong. It neglects that in many cases, e.g. as regards the alarming rate of Arctic sea ice decline (we saw a <a href="http://www.livescience.com/23362-arctic-summer-ice-disappearance.html">new record low</a> set just weeks ago), the climate models have been far too cautious; We are <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lou-leonard/losing-the-top-of-the-wor_b_1904924.html?utm_hp_ref=green">decades ahead of schedule</a> relative to what the models predicted. Uncertainty cuts both ways, and in many respects -- be it the rapid decline in Arctic sea ice, or the melting of the ice sheets -- it is cutting against us. Uncertainty, as many <a href="http://www.realclimateeconomics.org/uncertainty_and_risks.html">economists recognize</a>, is thus a reason for action, not inaction! I'm surprised someone as sharp as Nate just doesn't appear to get that.

Nate also takes some unnecessary cheap shots. In what has now become a rite of passage for those looking to establish their "honest broker" bona fides in the climate change debate, Nate makes the requisite "punch the hippie" accusation that Al Gore exaggerated the science of climate change in An Inconvenient Truth (a team of climate scientists reviewed the movie for accuracy and found that by-and-large Gore <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/10/convenient-untruths/">got the science right</a>). He characterizes climate scientist Gavin Schmidt as a "sarcastic" individual who is unwilling to put his money where his mouth is by betting his personal savings on his climate model predictions (this felt to me reminiscent of Mitt Romney's <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/10/mitt-romneys-10000-bet-rick-perry_n_1141387.html">widely mocked $10,000 bet challenge</a> to Rick Perry). And while I do appreciate some of the nice things Nate says in the book about me personally (e.g. "Mann is exceptionally thoughtful about the science behind global warming"), he at the same time deeply misrepresents our discussion on several counts.

I had emphasized the importance of distinguishing the true uncertainties in climate science (and there are plenty e.g. the influence of warming on hurricanes, how the El Nino phenomenon might be affected, or how regional patterns of rainfall may change) from the manufactured uncertainties and myths typically promoted by climate change deniers and contrarians (e.g. "how come there has been no warming since 1998?" -- the answer is that, of course, there <a href="http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm">has been</a>). I stressed how important it is, when scientists communicate to the public, to make clear that while there are many details that are still uncertain, the big picture (that humans are warming the planet and changing the climate, and that far larger and potentially more dangerous changes loom in our future if we don't act) <a href="http://www.nasonline.org/about-nas/leadership/president/statement-climate-change.pdf">is not</a>.

Nate cherry-picks a single sound bite ("our statements [should not be] so laden in uncertainty that no one even listens.") to once again reinforce the false narrative that scientists are understating uncertainty. The point I was actually making was that we cannot spend so much time talking about what we don't know, that we don't end up telling the public what we do know. That, as Nate correctly quotes me, "would be irresponsible". Nate states that "the more dramatic [climate scientists'] claims, the more likely they [are] be quoted...", seemingly implying that scientists have a motivation to overstate the science. He ignores the fact that those scientists willing to feed the false "scientists are exaggerating" narrative are the true darlings of the "balance" over "objectivity" <a href="http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/6572">school of</a> news reporting -- a school of thought that Nate sadly seems to have subscribed to.

Most disappointing to me of all was the false equivalence that Nate draws between the scientific community's efforts to fight back against intentional distortions and attacks by an industry-funded attack machine, and the efforts of that attack machine itself. He characterizes this simply as a battle between "consensus" scientists and "skeptical" individuals, as if we're talking about two worthy adversaries in a battle. This framing is flawed on multiple levels, not the least of which is that those he calls "skeptics" are in fact typically no such thing. There is a difference between honest skepticism -- something that is not only valuable but necessary for the progress of science -- and pseudo-skepticism, i.e. denialism posing as "skepticism" for the sake of obscuring, rather than clarifying, what is known.

Nate deeply mischaracterizes <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7286/full/464141a.html">an editorial</a> published by the prestigious and staid journal Nature (whose sentiments are echoed in my book <a href="http://www.amazon.com/The-Hockey-Stick-Climate-Wars/dp/023115254X/">The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars</a>) warning scientists that they "must acknowledge that they are in a street fight, and that their relationship with the media really matters." Nate grossly mischaracterizes the quote, claiming that "the long-term goal of the street fight is to persuade the public and policy makers about the urgency (or lack thereof) of action to combat climate change." Nate makes it sound like the "street fight" was of the scientists choosing, completely turning on its head what Nature was actually talking about: scientists finding a better way to defend science from cynical attacks whose sole aim is to confuse the public about what we actually do know about climate change (and therefore forestall any efforts to deal with it).

I could detail the numerous other problems with the chapter (and no -- there aren't really 538 of them; I confess to having taken some "poetic license" with the title of this commentary). But the real point is that this book was a lost opportunity when it comes to the topic of climate change. Nate could have applied his considerable acumen and insight to shed light on this important topic. But the result was instead a very mixed bag of otherwise useful commentary marred by needless misconceptions and inappropriately laundered denialist memes.

Don't get me wrong. I'm still a FON (Fan Of Nate). I will continue to follow his thoughtful commentary on all matters of politics and polling. But when he makes claims about other topics, like climate change, I think I'll be a lot more skeptical. Skepticism -- real skepticism -- is, after all -- a good thing.

</div></div></div></div>