« A White House Power Grab Being Missed By Congress And America | Main | Planned Parenthood: Those aren't heartbeats you hear, they're heart 'tones' »

December 9, 2009

New Scientific Paper on AGW: 'No Scientific Validation to Support Procedures of Warming Alarmists'

That's the conclusion of a fascinating new paper by South Australian academic Dr Kesten C. Green and American forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong comparing global warmism to past scares concludes the current one is much like the rest - just as dodgy and just as likely to peter out. According to Green and Armstrong, to date, no scientific forecasts support the alarm over dangerous manmade global warming. Improper procedures were used to forecast dangerous warming, and there has been no validation to support their use:

Abstract

We summarize evidence showing that the global warming alarm movement has more of the character of a political movement than that of a scientific controversy. We then make forecasts of the effects and outcomes of this movement using a structured analysis of analogous situations--a method that has been shown to produce accurate forecasts for conflict situations... We searched the literature and asked diverse experts to identify phenomena that could be characterized as alarms warning of future disasters that were endorsed by scientists, politicians, and the media, and that were accompanied by calls for strong action. The search yielded 71 possible analogies. We examined objective accounts to screen the possible analogies and found that 26 met all criteria. We coded each for forecasting procedures used, the accuracy of the forecasts, the types of actions called for, and the effects of actions implemented. Our preliminary findings are that analogous alarms were presented as "scientific," but none were based on scientific forecasting procedures. Every alarming forecast proved to be false; the predicted adverse effects either did not occur or were minor. Costly government policies remained in place long after the predicted disasters failed to materialize. The government policies failed to prevent ill effects... The structured analogies approach suggests that the current global warming alarm is simply the latest example of a common social phenomenon: an alarm based on unscientific forecasts of a calamity. We conclude that the global warming alarm will fade, but not before much additional harm is done by governments and individuals making inferior

Introduction

To date, no scientific forecasts support the alarm over dangerous manmade global warming. Improper procedures were used to forecast dangerous warming, and there has been no validation to support their use (Green and Armstrong 2007a; Green, Armstrong and Soon 2009). The basic claim by those who promote alarming predictions of dangerous manmade global warming is that nearly all scientists agree that it will occur. However, voting by scientists on what will happen in the future is not a proper approach to science. Moreover, the claim that nearly all scientists agree has been shown to be false by surveys and by petitions signed by identified scientists with relevant qualifications (e.g., Bray and von Storch 2007; Robinson, Robinson and Soon 2007). Despite published and verifiable evidence that the claim of scientific consensus is false, global warming alarmists continue to repeat this claim.

Meanwhile, Alarmist-in-chief ignores the truth and is pissing off Americans with his decision to regulate greenhouse gasses in the United States through the EPA.

Related: Climate in Wonderland

H/t - Free Republic

Posted by Abdul at December 9, 2009 2:37 PM

• New Scientific Paper on AGW: 'No Scientific Validation to Support Procedures of Warming Alarmists' - Dec 09, 2009