The New York Times published, online and in its print edition, the following letter to the editor concerning climate change by forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong, whose testimony before a Congressional committee was recently publicized by Heartland and whose report on the IPCC’s forecasting techniques is available on Heartland’s Web site.
Armstrong and his colleagues, Willie Soon and Kesten Green, have spoken at Heartland’s international conferences on climate change and have been quite effective in raising questions about the IPCC’s methodologies on global warming.
April 10, 2011
A Forecasting Expert Testifies About Climate Change
To the Editor:
In “The Truth, Still Inconvenient” (column, April 4), Paul Krugman begins with a “joke” about “an economist, a lawyer and a professor of marketing” walking into a room, in this case to testify at a Congressional hearing on climate science.
I am the marketing professor, and I was invited to testify because I am a forecasting expert.
With Dr. Kesten C. Green and Dr. Willie Soon, I found that the global warming alarm is based on improper forecasting procedures. We developed a simple model that provides forecasts that are 12 times more accurate than warming-alarm forecasts for 90 to 100 years ahead.
We identified 26 analogous situations, such as the alarm over mercury in fish. Government actions were demanded in 25 situations and carried out in 23. None of the alarming forecasts were correct, none of the interventions were useful, and harm was caused in 20.
Mr. Krugman challenged 2 of the 26 analogies, “acid rain and the ozone hole,” which he said “have been contained precisely thanks to environmental regulation.” We are waiting for his evidence.
“What’s the punch line?” he asked. I recommended an end to government financing for climate change research and to associated programs and regulations. And that’s no joke.
J. SCOTT ARMSTRONG
Philadelphia, April 6, 2011
The writer is a professor at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.