GLOBAL WARMING: FORECASTS BY SCIENTISTS VERSUS SCIENTIFIC FORECASTS

• Published in: Energy & environment (Essex, England) Vol. 18; no. 7/8; pp. 997 - 1021
• Main Authors: Green, Kesten C., Armstrong, J. Scott
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London, England Multi-Science Publishing Co. Ltd 01.12.2007; SAGE Publications
• Subjects: Analytical forecasting; Climate change; Climate models; Empirical evidence; Forecasting; Forecasting models; Global climate models; Global warming; International environmental cooperation; Mathematical analysis; Panels; Policies; Scientists; Time series forecasting; United Nations; Weather forecasting; evaluation; expert judgment; audit; mathematical models; accuracy; climate change; public policy
• ISSN: 0958-305X; 2048-4070
• DOI: 10.1260/095830507782616887

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Working Group One, a panel of experts established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, issued its Fourth Assessment Report. The Report included predictions of dramatic increases in average world temperatures over the next 92 years and serious harm resulting from the predicted temperature increases. Using forecasting principles as our guide we asked: Are these forecasts a good basis for developing public policy? Our answer is "no". To provide forecasts of climate change that are useful for policy-making, one would need to forecast (1) global temperature, (2) the effects of any temperature changes, and (3) the effects of feasible alternative policies. Proper forecasts of all three are necessary for rational policy making. The IPCC WG1 Report was regarded as providing the most credible long-term forecasts of global average temperatures by 31 of the 51 scientists and others involved in forecasting climate change who responded to our survey. We found no references in the 1056-page Report to the primary sources of information on forecasting methods despite the fact these are conveniently available in books, articles, and websites. We audited the forecasting processes described in Chapter 8 of the IPCC's WG1 Report to assess the extent to which they complied with forecasting principles. We found enough information to make judgments on 89 out of a total of 140 forecasting principles. The forecasting procedures that were described violated 72 principles. Many of the violations were, by themselves, critical. The forecasts in the 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.