- Doomed Climate Lawsuits Waste Precious Time and Money - February 12, 2020
- NASA and NOAA’s Latest Climate Warning Is a Result of Purposefully Flawed Data - February 12, 2020
- Why Should We Endorse Trump’s NEPA Reforms? - January 30, 2020
In today’s edition of The Heartland Daily Podcast, Managing Editor of Enivironment and Climate News H. Sterling Burnett talks with J. Scott Armstrong. Armstrong is a professor at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Scott is a founder of the Journal of Forecasting, International Journal of Forecasting, and International Symposium on Forecasting. In this episode, Burnett and Armstrong discuss the principles of forecasting.
Armstrong’s work shows that climate alarmists, including the IPCC, violate more than 80 percent of observationally validated professional forecasting principles when making their predictions. For instance, they ignore or downplay evidence to the contrary and they ignore evidence and instead rely on models and “expert” opinion. Armstrong discussed a Washington Times piece that argued that rather than focusing on funding or ideology, when examining climate science research, as with all research, one should go back to the basics of science wherein the ability to replicate a study’s findings is the hallmark of whether the work is sound and accurate. Armstrong’s takeaway is science is self-correcting, the work stands or falls not based upon the motives of the researchers but rather upon whether is holds up to scrutiny, retesting and replication.