Heartland’s Senior Fellow James M. Taylor, J.D. interviewed Professor Scott Armstrong from Pennsylvania’s Wharton School regarding his work in forecasting. Dr. Armstrong criticizes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s work, as they claim they are use scientific forecasting when in reality they are scenarios.
These scenarios are invalid and are not scientically verifiable. In other words, scenarios are fabricated story telling. The work of Dr. Armstrong receives no outside support and provides a much more accurate climate information as a public service. His no change model is consistent to predict in regards to areas of high uncertainty.
Dr. Armstrong conducted an audit of the IPCC’s climate change findings, treating them as the ‘forecasts’ they stated, and found that 72 of the 89 scientific principles of forecasting were voided. His correlating work has used the forecasting method to use reverse predictions dating from 1850, the start of the Industrial Revolution, to present day, and 100 years into the future.
What he found in his work was that the IPCC’s predictions and calculations error margins were seven times larger than his findings. His future forecast finds showed no temperature increase whereas the IPCC’s future inaccurate temperature increase findings were 12 times the size of Dr. Armstrong’s.
Listen to this insightful discussion — which leads to an elaboration on the scientific process and validity of his work — in the player above.
[Subscribe to the Heartland Daily Podcast for free at this link.]