Talk:List of climate change controversies

Subpages:

• /sides in the GW controversy

Archives
February 2003 – December 2004 December 2004 – February 2007 Febraury 2007 – March 2007 /Archive_4 /Archive_5 /Archive_6 /Archive_7

Template:Unsigned -->

The possibility of long-term climate forecasting is unproven

The section on "Controversy concerning the science" should include a subsection on scientific forecasting and the work of Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong. Most recently a study has been web published by National Center for Policy Analysis by Green and Armstrong claiming "it has yet to be demonstrated that long-term forecasting of climate is possible." [1] Wikipedia readers certainly deserve to have access to the audit on global warming performed by Green and Armstrong. RonCram (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Publications by think thanks funded by ExxonMobile do not meet our requirements for reliable sources. Raul654 (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but why are publications from the National Center for Policy Analysis less reliable than postings on RealClimate? I missed the part of WP:RS where it said that reliability is determined by the vested interests of the entities funding publication. And it's a bit deceptive to say that a think tank receiving $40k/year from ExxonMobil is really "funded" by them anyway. Oren0 (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Because RealClimate is written by renown climate scientist and has received positive coverage from reliable scientific sources, while the NCPA is a partisan political organization not known for any reliable scientific statement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Armstrong has published these same findings in a peer-reviewed journal, Energy and Environment. [2] I used the link to National Center for Policy Analysis because it was more readable and would be accessible to more Wikipedia readers. Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong are leading experts in scientific forecasting, as much or more so than the people at RealClimate are experts in climate science. RonCram (talk) 04:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ron, we have gone over that over and over again. E&E is not considered a reliable source. It's review process, if any, is "eccentric", to say the least, as even acknowledged by the less fringe sceptics. --Stephan Schulz (talk)

Stephan, yes, we have gone over it before. There is at least as much editorial oversight of E&E as there is for NY Times or Washington Post. There is no question regarding the fact both E&E and NCPA are reliably expressing the views of Green and Armstrong, acknowledged experts in scientific forecasting. This is an article about the controversy. There is no reasonable explanation for withholding from Wikipedia readers this aspect of the controversy. RonCram (talk) 14:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoever on earth said that Green and Armstrong are "acknowledged experts in scientific forecasting"? Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I said it. Armstrong is one of the original founders of two scientific journals on forecasting. His book is a textbook on the subject. Surely you do not doubt their expertise, do you? RonCram (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephan, when describing why you reverted my edit you wrote: "Whatever Armstrong claims, the IPCC is not forecasting, it is modeling." You make Armstrong's point. The IPCC makes "projections" based on computer models. The word "projections" occurs 33 times in the IPCC report. [3] Armstrong says that computer modeling may inform expert opinion, but it is not the same as a scientific forecast. Armstrong also writes that expert opinion informed by computer models is no better than non-expert opinion. Your comment shows you are beginning to understand the controversy on this issue. Regarding the fact NCPA received funding from ExxonMobil, that is a non-issue. This is an article about the controversy around global warming. Why would anyone raise the issue of WP:RS to keep information out of the article about the controversy around "projections" vs. "scientific forecasts?" Do you really think E&E has misrepresented the views of Green and Armstrong? Do you think NCPA has misrepresented the views of Green and Armstrong? There is no good reason to keep their views on this important issue out of an article on the controversy around global warming. RonCram (talk) 06:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence that Green and Armstrong have any idea how climate models work. They seem to think that they're analogous in some way to econometric models and can be similarly evaluated, but the two types of models have absolutely nothing whatsoever in common. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The guy of whom I speak below would mostly disagree with you... --Childhood's End (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

David Orrell has debunked climate forecasting. The problem is not with "computer power", as you would imagine... The book is all available for quotes. --Childhood's End (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I see. A popsci book by that hallmark of academic publishing, HarperCollins. I'm impressed... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Certainly, you would not have focused your attention on the author rather than on the publisher. --Childhood's End (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes. Even a good scientist can write a coffee table book. This looks like it is aimed at scientifically illiterates, with a lot of comforting stories how "those scientists" also get things wrong (and ignoring that on every step you make a scientific prediction comes true...). Nothing wrong with that, its just not a reliable source. I don't want to malign the author in general, but his publication record is not very stellar, most of his papers are in unrelated field, and the most cited relevant paper has a grand total of three citations - one of which is a self-citation, and one is by an unpublished preprint.[4]. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The book has nine chapters and whereas it would be legitimate to say that the first three are more pop than science (they're really a good candy though), the rest of the book is about modelling. This guy is an expert in complex systems (a concept that strangely seems to elude most of the editors hangning around here) and obviously knows more about climate models than you and me. Your condescension makes little sense imo.

Climate, economics and health are not independant systems, and to make a long-term forecast of one, you need to integrate all three. Models for each try to reproduce non-linear, dynamical systems with innumerable positive and negative feedback loops. Initial conditions are subject to uncertainty, and so are measurements. Parametrization comes into play for the processes that are less understood or that lack equations. Then model error at the initial time grows in a cumulative and dynamic manner for all these models. Now that's my short summary, but please either read what the author says and refute it, or do not address it at all. Opinions about the publisher or about publication records really are sophisms, beside the fact that they're... opinions. --Childhood's End (talk) 01:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Climate is still far simpler to describe starting from fundamental laws of physics than economics or health. Now, I'm not an expert in climate science, but I've read that climate is not chaotic on time scales of decades. Then the fact that some phenomena have to be desribed using effective equations that cannot be derived from first principles is not anything different from what engineers who design aircraft, powerplants, etc. do every day. The flow of water inside pipes of heat exchangers in powerplants is chaotic. A first principles computation of the heat transfer coefficient would necessarily involve simulating how the water flows throught the heat exchangers. But the engineers do not need to perform such computations. And, needless to say, the powerplants do not behave chaotically. Count Iblis (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this input. I'd be willing to read more about this, but just to touch on a few points you make, climate, health and economics all are complex systems, and that's what make them unpredictable through modelling. The explanation is scientific really, only it has not reached these specific fields so far, notably because there's a market for forecasts in each (they still make economic predictions for a reason...). Powerplant parts are quite different. Once they work and are set, they're consistent. Initial error (if there is any) does not add up over a time scale. I would also suppose that for such parts, there are no significant unknown unknowns. --Childhood's End (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I find it a bit strange the criteria that you guys use to evaluate inclusion. So far the arguments are: 1. The NCPA is funded by oil (dubious and irrelevant), 2. E&E isn't reliable (which is true, but irrelevant since the same info is also published by the NCPA), 3. "I've seen no evidence that Green and Armstrong have any idea how climate models work" (as if the standard for inclusion is convincing editors of their expertise), and 4. You're unimpressed by the publisher. These arguments about reliability are meaningless because it's clear that these articles represent the opinions of these individuals, which is what they're presented as. The only real discussion to be had here is one of WP:WEIGHT, which is a reasonable discussion to be had. However, there seems to be a large portion of the climate community who doesn't believe strongly in these models (I read a study recently, I could dig it up, saying that something like 35% of climate scientists agree that models can accurately predict climate, while some 47% disagree). So it's not clear to me that these guys are presenting such a fringe view when they say these models are unproven or unreliable. Oren0 (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I would argue against the inclusion of A+G on the grounds that they don't know what they are talking about. Nor is their self-promotion sufficiently notable to be included, nor published in a useful venue. This article isn't here to reproduce the opinions of clueless individuals William M. Connolley (talk) 18:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

William, whether you understand A&G or not, they do make sense. They clearly known exactly what they are talking about. It is the climate scientists who do not know anything about scientific forecasting. Just as Michael Mann tried to innovate new statistical methods without checking with statisticians, the climate modelers have tried to innovate "projections" without checking with the scientists who do scientific forecasts. The work of these climate modelers is downright shoddy. We have already talked about Orrin Pilkey's book "Useless Arithmetic" in which he discusses how the computer models for the coastline are never accurate. Besides, William, arguing to exclude an argument from one side of the controversy because "they don't know what they are talking about" is purely POV. It is the policy of Wikipedia to allow both sides of a controversy to present their case. There is no reasonable excuse to preclude A&G from the controversy. RonCram (talk) 12:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure there is. They have no expertise whatsoever in the field at hand, as is plainly apparent from reading their work. Raymond Arritt (talk) 12:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, the field at hand is scientific forecasting and they are experts in it. I was just reading from the website of David Orrell on other books on the science of prediction. [5] Orell approvingly quotes from "Useless Arithmetic" this passage: "The problem is not the math itself, but the blind acceptance and even idolatry we have applied to the quantitative models." It appears David Orrell, Orrin Pilkey and A&G all have similar views that the models are not trustworthy. I cannot see any reason to keep this out of the article. RonCram (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, Orrell lists another book on the science of prediction, "Prediction: Science, Decision Making, and the Future of Nature," and one of the editors and contributors is Roger A. Pielke. It appears Pielke agrees that the science of prediction can be applied to climate forecasts. Perhaps we can find some usable quotes from this text as well. RonCram (talk) 12:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A+G aren't competent to make remarks on climate prediction simply because you insist that they are (see "proof by repeated assertion"). Orrell and Pilkey are more worthy of being taken seriously. Raymond Arritt (talk) 13:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, your claim A&G are not competent is unsupported. Scientific forecasting is not limited to any one field, like economics. A&G study economics, marketing, politics and other fields. They conduct audits of projections by other experts to determine if these people followed proper protocols. When they audited the projections of climate scientists, they were found wanting. Their research into the problems with IPCC projections deserves a place in this article. Your repeating the claim they are not competent is not valid and you know it. RonCram (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Retract your inexcusable accusation of bad faith, and I will respond. Otherwise I don't see the point. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, what accusation of bad faith? You have not demonstrated the incompetence of A&G, nor have you attempted to do so. If I have said something to offend you, let me know what it is... or justify your claim A&G are not competent. RonCram (talk) 18:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, I appreciate that you shared with me your concern with me on my Talk page. My "accusing" of double-think is not an act of bad faith. All of us fall victim to our own double thinks at times. By inviting you to provide evidence of the incompetence of A&G, I was encouraging you to confront your double-think. That is all. Please do not be so easily offended. Regarding an apology, I would certainly apologize if I thought I had done anything wrong. To show my good faith, I invite you to point out any of my "double-thinks" you happen to notice. RonCram (talk) 20:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, I find it interesting that you accuse Ron of the fallacy of proof by repeated assertion in repeating that they're experts and then you turn around and repeat again and again that these authors "don't know what they're talking about" without justification or evidence. Surely you can explain why their backgrounds are irrelevant, or point to fundamental flaws in their methodology and assumptions. Not that it matters anyway, because we can't judge their competence. We have to assume that publications in reliable venues are appropriate, and we can provide rebuttals as they are published as well. Oren0 (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Be it Orrell, Pilkey, Pielke, Tennekes, Armstrong/Green, Zichichi, Christy, or whoever else worthy of note, a section about this issue is legitimate. I would also echo OrenO and add that William's and Raymond's opinions about who understands or not the field are completely irrelevant (especially when one of them thinks that climate models and economic models have nothing to do whatsoever with each other). Wikipedia has inclusion rules, and editors' pov are no part of it. --Childhood's End (talk) 13:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

And which opinion would that be from Pilkey? I'm currently reading the book - and so far Ron's description of Pilkey has been severely lacking (as judged by the many comments he has had on Pilkey). So i'm asking: what exactly is Pilkey's opinion? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I must say that I have not read Pilkey's book, although it is on my list. I have read reviews and comments about it and what Ron says above seems to be fairly in accordance with them about what the book says (models are unreliable; or "worse than useless" to quote Naomi Oreskes' review of the book). See for instance [6] [7], [8]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Childhoodsend (talk • contribs)

Childhoodsend is correct. Pilkey basically says the coastline forecasts are wrong, mainly because nature is chaotic. Pilkey also shows a great deal of respect for the IPCC's TAR discussion of the uncertainty of their projections. He then bemoans the fact the public and the policymakers are never told the level of uncertainty and so they think global warming is absolutely going to be catastrophic. 69.63.201.178 (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually from my read the claim isn't that the public and policymakers aren't informed - but rather that they do not heed or read the very detailed discussions about uncertainty. In effect they say that the models are used (by both sides) to say something that they do not. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Armstrong has complained the IPCC has completely ignored the scientific literature on forecasting. Here is a quote from his paper:

We also examined the 535 references in Chapter 9. Of these, 17 had titles that suggested the article might be concerned at least in part with forecasting methods. When we inspected the 17 articles, we found that none of them referred to the scientific literature on forecasting methods.

It is difficult to understand how scientific forecasting could be conducted without reference to the research literature on how to make forecasts. One would expect to see empirical justification for the forecasting methods that were used. We concluded that climate forecasts are informed by the modelers’ experience and by their models—but that they are unaided by the application of forecasting principles. (page 1015) [9]

There is no reason Wikipedia readers should be shielded from this information. RonCram (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is a very good reason Ron: reliable sources (which E&E is not). Heres another: The metric used in the "paper" is defined by Armstrong himself. Heres a third: weight in literature. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Kim, you are not thinking clearly. E&E is a reliable source regarding the views of Armstrong and Green. Do you honestly think their views have been misstated? Of course not. What do you mean "Heres another: The metric used in the "paper" is defined by Armstrong himself." What does that refer to? The A&G paper refers to principles of scientific forecasting. Armstrong writes that the IPCC does not cite any literature from any of the scientific forecasting journals or even a scientific forecasting paper in a more general journal. The IPCC is completely ignorant of the literature. What is your point about undue weight? Currently the article does not have anything on the issue of scientific forecasting.RonCram (talk) 20:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• The views of A are not interesting. A complains that everyone is ignoring him. Why is this notable, or interesting? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Armstrong is working on forecasting - looking at time series with at best simple models, and trying to predict them. This is a completely different technique from scientific modeling, where you have a detailed physical model and determine its reaction to certain changes in parameters. What then IPCC does is no more "forecasting" in Armstrong's sense than predicting the time of the next lunar eclipse is "forecasting", or using the ballistic curve of a shell to predict time and place of impact. If Armstrong is not aware of this, he is indeed incompetent. If he is, he is at best an attention grabber with a political axe to grind, and at worst dishonest. Ron does have a point in claiming that this is the controversy page, and Armstrong tries to be part of the controversy. However, so far he has gotten about zero scientific support for his claims - in fact, as far as I can tell he is entirely ignored outside the political arena. Thus, WP:WEIGHT comes into play when trying to describe Armstrong's claims as part of the scientific debate. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
• Ron, I agree there should be a section about model forecasting. We are not here to judge wether all these persons are right or wrong, but to report that there exists a notable and verifiable controversy about climate models' reliability. Imo, there are more prominent critics than A/G, but perhaps their view can legitimately be mentioned in a short way. Depends on how long the section would get with the more prominent critics. --Childhood's End (talk) 21:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

William, try to stay up. Armstrong is not complaining that people are ignoring him. Armstrong is complaining the IPCC has ignored the entire body of literature on scientific forecasting. The fact Armstrong is the co-founder of two of the four leading scientific journals on the subject shows he is a recognized leader in the field, but hundreds of scientists have published on this topic and the IPCC has ignored all of it. RonCram (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephan, you are mischaracterizing Armstrong's work. Armstrong's work deals with the principles of scientific forecasting, principles that are important without regard to the scientific field. The IPCC has completely ignored the literature, even where it is applicable. Many of these principles were developed and described by others and compiled by Armstrong. Have you read the references on A&G's paper? He is not just citing his own works, like William would like you to believe. One of the key points the paper makes is that the IPCC has not demonstrated that any meaningful long-term climate projection is even possible. You have no evidence regarding your claim that Armstrong has not picked up any scientific support for his paper. In fact, Pilkey, Orren and others have also published many of the same criticisms. I am not saying they were following Armstrong, but their views certainly support Armstrong in many places. RonCram (talk) 21:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Ron, you know nothing of A's work, other than his own puff about it. A is miffed because people ignore his stuff; people ignore his stuff because it isn't useful. But his being miffed is NN, which is why it isn't in the article. Its pretty obvious by now that this discussion is going nowhere William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

William, you are not correct and your insulting comments about Armstrong may be actionable. What evidence do you have that A is miffed because people are ignoring his work? He has not written on that and no responsible journalist has. Armstrong has written on is the fact the IPCC has completely ignored ALL of the literature on scientific forecasting. Keep in mind as you read the quote below that there are four scientific journals dedicated to forecasting and hundreds of articles have been published on the topic. This is the literature Armstrong is referring to here:

We also examined the 535 references in Chapter 9. Of these, 17 had titles that suggested the article might be concerned at least in part with forecasting methods. When we inspected the 17 articles, we found that none of them referred to the scientific literature on forecasting methods.

It is difficult to understand how scientific forecasting could be conducted without reference to the research literature on how to make forecasts. One would expect to see empirical justification for the forecasting methods that were used. We concluded that climate forecasts are informed by the modelers’ experience and by their models—but that they are unaided by the application of forecasting principles. (page 1015) [10]

Now that you have seen what Armstrong has written, will you kindly stop insulting Armstrong by saying it is his own work he wants cited? If the IPCC had cited ANY of the scientific literature on forecasting and Armstrong was still complaining, then you might have a point. But the IPCC has not. The work the IPCC has done is shoddy. It is akin to Michael Mann trying to innovate new statistical methods without being a statistician or checking with any. Why would the IPCC do projections without checking with the scientists in the field? Shoddy work if you ask me. RonCram (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you're just repeating yourself pointlessly, I suppose I will to: Its pretty obvious by now that this discussion is going nowhere and WP:SOAP. However as long as you're just spamming the talk page no great harm is done William M. Connolley (talk) 07:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

William, I am not spamming the article. This is the process of gaining consensus. Childhoodsend and Oren already support the inclusion of the controversy around scientific forecasting. You, Stephan and Count seem to be the holdouts. Stephan and Count may be converts by now because all of the reasons put forward to exclude A&G have been shot down. A&G's writings are notable as can be seen from all of the press coverage and the fact they have published two peer-reviewed audits of global warming related (the IPCC audit and the polar bear audit) issues. The polar bear audit was commissioned by the State of Alaska and is discussed below. It seems to me the only argument you have left to exclude A&G is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. RonCram (talk) 17:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

How reliable is expert opinion on the future?

This is a big part of the controversy, as framed by J. Scott Armstrong. Scientific forecasting is evidence-based forecasting. Armstrong claims the "projections" of experts are no better than the projections of non-experts. Armstrong refers readers to the research of Phil Tetlock and his book "Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?" Tetlock looked at thousands of projections made by experts and non-experts over a twenty year period. One reviewer of Tetlock's book writes:

"Before anyone turns an ear to the panels of pundits, they might do well to obtain a copy of Phillip Tetlock's new book Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? The Berkeley psychiatrist has apparently made a 20-year study of predictions by the sorts who appear as experts on TV and get quoted in newspapers and found that they are no better than the rest of us at prognostication."--Jim Coyle, Toronto Star [11]

When Armstrong writes that experts are no better at predicting the future than non-experts, he has good research to back up his claim. There is no reason to prevent Wikipedia readers from having access to this information. RonCram (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

IMHO the first part of this is correct (lots of things like the oil price are notorious for experts always being worse than tealeaf readers) and probably belongs in some WP article on the philosophy of science. However I think what goes here should be stuff which WP policy says goes in which should (to prevent the article being 500000 pages) be specific not general scientific process stuff. However flawed expert opinion is, that is more or less what WP says it gives. --BozMo talk 07:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be called Expert Political Judgment. I suggest you take this to the Politics page and see if they like your spam over there William M. Connolley (talk) 07:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

William, the fact experts are no better at predicting the future than non-experts is true in every field. Politicians must deal with experts in many scientific fields, including earth sciences. Politicians are certainly involved in assessing the claims of climate scientists. Perhaps you should read the book before criticizing the relevance of the book to this article.RonCram (talk) 17:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is A&G part of the controversy?

Not in the scientific community, because as pointed out above they are not taken seriously there. If there are many skeptics who use their arguments, then we could still write about it. But I think that the controversy is limited to this wiki page  :) Count Iblis (talk) 13:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. A&G are taken very seriously in the scientific community. A has co-founded two journals on scientific forecasting and the International Institute of Forecasting. Forecasting should be evidence-based, the science way. Climate scientists are conducting computer models which have absolutely no predictive power. RonCram (talk) 18:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Armstrong has done work in economics. There is no sign at all that anybody takes his claims about physical sciences serious.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny you should say that, Stephan. The State of Alaska takes them seriously. Alaska commissioned A&G to audit research done to support the US Department of Interior's decision to list polar bears on the endangered species list. A&G audited the research and found it to be wanting. [12] A&G's paper has been accepted for publication in the management science journal Interfaces. It is the only peer-reviewed paper on polar bear population forecasting that has been accepted for publication in an academic journal. If there is something wrong with A&G's research, you are free to post in the article any published criticism of their approach to scientific forecasting. What you cannot do is decide who can criticize climate researchers. RonCram (talk) 05:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What's A&G?--BozMo talk 05:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

J. Scott Armstrong and Ksomething Green[e]. See the above sections. And Ron, quite apart from the qualification of the state of Alaska on scientific issues, analyzing the population of polar bears is not exactly a physical science... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Stephan, I understand that but the reason the policymakers in Alaska asked them to audit the polar bear issue is because it is related to global warming and they knew A&G had audited global warming. In fact, the polar bear paper depends in large part on the conclusions drawn from the global warming paper. If you have not read the polar bear paper, you should.[13] I was also pleased to see that one of the named reviewers on the polar bear paper was Orrin Pilkey. A&G have now published two papers in peer-reviewed journals using the principles of scientific forecasting to criticize global warming. Your claim they have not picked up any scientific support is simply not true. RonCram (talk) 13:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ron, the study you have cited by A&G cites another study for the claim that many climate scientists do not believe models can accurate predict future climates. The study cited in the paper is a survey done by Bast and Taylor and published by the Heartland Institute. One look at it makes it clear that it's full of unclear, loaded questions, similar to what Milloy tried to do recently [14]. There are many ways the statement "Climate models can accurately predict future climates." can be taken. Based on this, I am reverting this part of your addition. (Looks like WMC already took care of your entire addition.) Jason Patton (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Jason, I did not know about the polling issue. I am willing to take your word for it for the time being. A future entry will use a different interesting bit from the same paper. At least you were reasonable. RonCram (talk) 01:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

New section: "Expert opinion versus scientific forecasting"

Now that many issues have been hashed out here, I have rewritten a section on this part of the controversy. As discussed above, the points raised by A&G are notable and come from reliable sources. You may, of course, include any published comments critical of the work of Tetlock or Armstrong and Green - but please do not delete this important section without having an unassailable reason. Some of the editors here are climate scientists. They especially must remember that they do not get to decide who gets to criticize them or their colleagues. RonCram (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ron, you are funny sometimes William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a revert was warranted, but the section definitely needed to be NPOV-ified. — Werdna talk 23:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Werdna, you are correct when you say a revert was not warranted. I certainly welcome any changes you might make to make it better. I was inviting people to answer the criticisms of Tetlock and A&G. This is, after all, an article on the controversy and so only giving one side would be wrong. But I am not personally aware of any published criticisms. I am certain that William will go along eventually. He always does. RonCram (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we summarize your original text and add a sentence or two to the section "Controversy concerning the science" just above the "petitions" subsection, saying e.g. that A&G claim that many climate scientists do not think that climate models make accurate predictions. Also we can write that according to A&G it has not been shown that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would lead to warmer or colder climate.

I'm not in favor of giving the detailed reasons why A&G think this way. Their criticism has simlar value to the criticisms of the other persons mentioned in that section. Count Iblis (talk) 02:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Count, thank you for moving in the right direction. Actually, just above Jason pointed out that certain problems may exist regarding the poll of climate scientists. So I would suggest we not use that. Readers of an article titled "Global warming controversy" want to know the what aspects of the science are controversial and why. The fact long-term "projections" are made for the climate without any reference to the scientific principles of forecasting is an important part of the controversy. RonCram (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Retitled New Section

Thanks to the comments by Jason, Werdna and Count who have all joined the voices of Childhoodsend, Oren0 and myself calling for the inclusion of a section on scientific forecasting, I have re-added the section with changes (thanks Jason). I understand that everyone may not agree with the exact wording here but we can work together to make it better. Readers want to know where the scientific controversy exists and why. Let's focus on giving them that.

Computer models vs. Evidence-based forecasting

Skeptics of catastrophic global warming are critical of the way the IPCC forecasts future climate. The IPCC seeks to find a consensus among computer modeling experts about future climate. However, the research shows “experts are often wrong in their forecasts of the future.”

Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong conducted an audit of the IPCC forecasting method and found a number of violations of scientific forecasting principles. They state:

The forecasts in the (IPCC) Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainly and complexity. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.’’

According to Green and Armstrong, the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report violated some basic forecasting principles, including:

• Consider whether the events or series can be forecasted.
• Keep forecasting methods simple.
• Do not use fit to develop the model.

Green and Armstrong argue that the possibility of accurate long-term climate forecasts has never been proven. They also argue that the research shows that simple methods always outperform more complex forecasting methods. RonCram (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't the current revision even cite G&A anymore? Oren0 (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed that but G&A have been completely misrepresented by these changes. They do not say that physical laws are worthless. They say the models are not based purely on physical laws or they would all produce the same results. Whoever is rewriting this portion has not read G&A or is purposely misrepresenting them. RonCram (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is what G&A actually write concerning physical laws:

Computer Modeling versus Scientific Forecasting. Over the past few decades, the methodology used in climate forecasting has shifted so that expert opinions are informed by computer models. Advocates of complex climate models claim that they are based on well-established laws of physics. But there is clearly much more to the models than physical laws, otherwise the models would all produce the same output, which they do not, and there would be no need for confidence estimates for model forecasts, which there certainly is. Climate models are, in effect, mathematical ways for experts to express their opinions.8

There is no empirical evidence that presenting opinions in mathematical terms rather than in words improves the accuracy of forecasts. In the 1800s, Thomas Malthus forecast mass starvation. Expressing his opinions in a mathematical model, he predicted that the food supply would increase arithmetically while the human population would grow at a geometric rate and go hungry. Mathematical models have not become much more accurate since.RonCram (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no empirical evidence that presenting opinions in mathematical terms rather than in words improves the accuracy of forecasts.

Clearly, A&G completely ignore that climate science is based on physics and that you cannot compare this with similar situations in economics. Also, one could easily make the oposite case: Physicists have made valuable contributions to economics recently by applying mathematical techniques that economists are not familiar with :) Count Iblis (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasnt aware of that! Pretty funny stuff, thanks! So are these physicists all making millions with this? :-) --Childhood's End (talk) 02:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Green and Armstrong

Stephan, thank you for adding something constructive to the article. I had completely forgotten about this piece written by Trenberth. Obviously, I knew about it at the time because my comment on the page is dated July 27, 2007. But this piece did slip my mind or I would have added it myself. RonCram (talk) 23:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I just read Gavin Schmidt's take on G&A for the first time. It was the best writing I've seen from Gavin, which is not saying much. Apparently, Gavin is trying out for Saturday Night Live. Calling Bob Carter a "rejectionist rump" is funny mainly because of the alliteration, but it is still an ad hominem attack. He also attacks G&A using "guilt by association." If Carter is an RR, then G&A must be too. It is too bad Gavin did not attempt to deal with any of the criticisms raised by G&A. That would have been more interesting to readers. Can anyone find some better bit of criticism of G&A than this tripe? RonCram (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)