Comments on Social Policy Bonds blog: Forecasts by scientists versus scientific forecast...

Thanks Harald. I don't think I'd set up a climate ...

2007-07-04T11:10:00.000+13:00

Thanks Harald. I don't think I'd set up a climate change think-tank. Your choice would be whether to invest in the bonds or not. Any organization that resuts from the bonds would have as its objective that of achieving climate stability. Running a think-tank of any sort, if it were to happen at all, would be a byproduct of that goal.

But your main point is valid: I am more concerned about setting up policies that would encourage people to dig ditches, rather than to dig ditches myself. I could - and would try to - do both of course, but my comparative advantage is in policy, rather than climate change science. Actually I don't see the two activities as mutually exclusive alternatives. I think setting up systems that reward the achievement of climate stability will motivate, and enlarge the pool of, the people interested in actaully achieving it. Regards

If a social policy bonds regime came into action, ...

2007-07-04T10:13:00.000+13:00

If a social policy bonds regime came into action, and climate think tanks started investigating actions against climate change... well, one thing is certain, I wouldn't be investing in your climate think tank!

On climate science, it seems to me you still have a bit of that "sell the shovels, buy ditch digged bonds instead!" attitude.

Thanks Frank for your comment. I emailed Gavin at ...

2007-07-03T09:34:00.000+13:00

Thanks Frank for your comment. I emailed Gavin at the excellent RealClimate website, asking for his views on the Armstrong and Green paper. I'm sure he won't mind my publishing the gist of his response here:

"We saw this, but it's very badly done. The authors ignorance about how modelling is done or what is actually being forecast is evident. For instance, they only looked at one chapter of the IPCC report when scattered throughout the three volumes are all the issues that they felt were ignored. 'Out of sample' tests? There are hundreds, but Armstrong et al gave it a -2 rating - that can only be because they don't know what the 'sample' is or how climate models are built and tested.

"Given the low level of diligence, plus the parrotting of some of the least well supported contrarian literature (Carter et al? please!), one gets the sense that the biggest point of contention is that IPCC didn't cite Armstrong's book."

It seems you were right to be skeptical. Regards

Hi Ronnie,It's funny, I came across Armstrong's ar...

2007-07-02T20:28:00.000+13:00

Hi Ronnie,

It's funny, I came across Armstrong's article a few days ago.
I haven't read it entirely, so I can't really discuss it. What put me off is that he (as so many others) claims to use scientific principles whereas others do not. In the chapter "On the value of forecasts by experts" he then quotes -what he calls- forecasts which turned out to be wrong. Does he really compare those to the climate predictions the IPCC is based on. Also he argues that Watt's statement from 1970 was a (wrong) forecast about temperature changes, when if fact Watt just said what would happen "[i]f present trends continue".
He is also cherry picking his references and grossly mis-interprets statements, e.g. says that Jim Renwick's statement about seasonal forecasting is a statement about global climate models in general.

Note that I do not want to make a judgement as to whether his conclusion is wrong or right, but his methods do not strike me as particularly scientific.

I have the impression that he is just frustrated because the scientific community ignores his "forecasting principles".

Cheers,
Frank