THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume XI, Issue # 71, March 5, 2009
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
CLIMATE CHANGE FORECASTS ARE USELESS FOR POLICYMAKING!
WHY RUSH TO RUIN THE ECONOMY OVER SOME DODGY FORECASTS?
By Dr. Kesten C. Green, Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, & Dr. Willie Soon
THE ENVIRONMENTALIST MOVEMENT, ITS PROPAGANDA & MEDIA SUPPORTERS, & ISSUES OF AMERICAN PUBLIC POLICY:
MAINSTREAM
MEDIA OUTLETS CONSTANTLY QUOTE SOCALLED ENVIRONMENTAL "EXPERTS" WHO PREDICT THAT SOARING
TEMPERATURES, RISING SEA LEVELS, INCREASING STORMS, PROLONGED DROUGHTS, & OTHER DISASTERS WILL RESULT
FROM USE OF FOSSIL FUELS, ENERGY PRODUCTION & CONSUMPTION, MANUFACTURING, MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION, &
OTHER HUMAN ACTIVITIES. HOW VALID ARE THESE PREDICTIONS? ARE THEY A SOUND BASIS FOR PUBLIC
POLICY DECISIONS THAT WILL HAVE INCALCULABLE, FAR-REACHING IMPACTS ON OUR ENERGY SECURITY, ECONOMY,
LIVING STANDARDS, & LIVES?
FULL STORY:
Even as we struggle with serious global financial and economic difficulties, some people believe manmade global
warming is a real problem of urgent concern. Perhaps this is because, almost every day, media outlets quote “experts”
who predict that soaring temperatures, rising sea levels, increasing storms, prolonged droughts, and other disasters
will result from human activity.
NASA scientist James Hansen claims “death trains” carrying coal are putting our planet “in peril.” If we continue
using hydrocarbon energy, he predicts, “…one ecological collapse will lead to another, in amplifying feedbacks.” He
further forecasts that, only by eliminating coal-fired power plants and other sources of carbon dioxide, can we prevent
the collapse.
The situation recalls a 1974 CIA report that concluded there was “growing consensus among leading climatologists
that the world is undergoing a cooling trend”… one likely to cause a food production crisis. Dr. Hansen would
probably appreciate the frustration those CIA experts must have felt when Congress ignored their forecasts and
recommendations.
If it makes sense to enact measures to reduce CO2 emissions when experts forecast warming, then surely it also makes
sense to emit extra CO2 when experts forecast cooling. Or perhaps not.
Perhaps any link between climate change and carbon dioxide is not so strong or important. Consider the historical
record.
The tiny fraction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased through the Twentieth Century. And, yet, during that
time, global average temperatures rose till about 1940, fell till about 1975, rose again till 1998, and then dropped away
again. It is not surprising, then, that, despite claims “the science is settled,” thousands of scientists disagree with
forecasts of dangerous manmade global warming.
History again provides useful guidance.
Back in 1860, scientists used observations and mathematical modeling to predict the existence of planet Vulcan in an
orbit 13 million miles from the Sun. More observations of the planet and extensive debate followed. Finally, the science
was settled. The model was wrong. Planet Vulcan does not exist.
Climate change is a complex problem that has generated a similarly heated debate Reliable data exist only for the last
three decades, whereas climate changes occur over decades and centuries. Not surprisingly, there are rival theories.
What is the status of experts’ forecasts in such a situation? Scientific forecasting research has shown that experts
aren’t able to provide accurate predictions in this kind of complex and uncertain situation. It doesn’t matter whether
experts present their forecasts as certain outcomes, detailed scenarios, expectations, likelihoods, or probabilities. Or
that the forecasts are the product of hard thinking by many highly qualified experts, or even of mathematics or
computer simulations. The expert forecasts are nonetheless worthless.
This lack of credible climate forecasts matters, because proposed policies – including taxing carbon emissions and
cap-and-trade regimes – will increase energy prices, cause major wealth transfers, and cost jobs. It would be immoral to
impose such punishing policies on the basis of dodgy forecasts.
Fortunately, proper forecasters know how to do better.
Global average temperatures vary up and down over short and long periods, without apparent pattern -- and our
current knowledge about what causes temperature and other climate changes is speculative and incomplete. Thus, the
first question a bona fide forecaster would ask is: Can we do better than assume future temperatures will be the same
as current temperatures?
The forecasting model based on this assumption is called the “no-change” model, and studies have shown it is often
difficult to beat. The model predicts that global average temperatures in each of the next 100 years will be the same as
the previous year’s temperature.
When this model is applied, starting in the year 1850, the differences between the forecasts and global temperature
measurements turn out to be quite small. For example, for temperature forecasts for 20 years in the future, the average
difference turns out to be 0.18°C (0.32°F). For forecasts for 50 years into the future, the average error was 0.24°C
(0.43°F).
These are temperature differences that a normal human being would have trouble detecting and are well within the
range of natural variation. The evidence clearly suggests that the no-change model is the obvious one for public
policymakers to use.
Policymakers, however, have tended to defer to the projections of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Perhaps it isn’t surprising that they should prefer projections that governments have paid billions for,
over forecasts from a free and simple model. But how do the IPCC projections perform?
The IPCC first projected a global warming rate of 0.03°C per year in 1992. The errors of the IPCC projection over the
years 1992 to 2008 were little different from the errors from the no-change model, when compared to actual measured
temperature changes. When the IPCC’s warming rate is applied to a historical period of exponential CO2 growth, from
1851 to 1975, the errors are more than seven times greater than errors from the no-change model.
The models employed by James Hansen and the IPCC are not based on scientific forecasting principles. There is no
empirical evidence that they provide longterm forecasts that are as accurate as forecasting that global average
temperatures won’t change. Hansen’s, and the IPCC’s, forecasts, and the recommendations based on them, should be
ignored.
It would be irresponsible and immoral of policymakers to impose the heavy burden of costly anti-carbon-based-energy
policies, in the absence of any credible evidence that those burdens will result in net benefits to man, beast, or tree.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Political Environmentalism Versus Human Progress & Prosperity:
Policy Issues Relating to Energy, Environment,
& Natural Resources
The Earth's Natural History, Global Climate Changes,
& the Future of Human Life & Civilization on the Planet:
Science, Ideology, & Public Policy
Political Economy -- Philosophies, Systems, & Public Policies:
Government, the Economy, & Economic Prosperity
Dr. Kesten Green is a Senior Research Fellow with the Business and Economic Forecasting Unit of Monash University
in Australia. Dr. Scott Armstrong is a professor at The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Willie Soon is
a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Dr. Green will discuss the use of scientific methods for forecasting climate change at the International Conference on
Climate Change in New York City on March 9, 2009. The team’s paper on this subject will be published later this year in
the International Journal of Forecasting and is available from http://publicpolicyforecasting.com.
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume XI, 2009
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity