J. Scott Armstrong Ph.D is a marketing professor at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania. According to his website, Armstrong's work focuses mainly on forecasting methods, strategic planning, survey research, and research methods.
Armstrong was the editor of Principles of Forecasting and the author of Long-Range Forecasting and Principles of Forecasting. He is also the co-founder of forecastingprinciples.com.
When Armstrong extended "The Climate Challenge" to Al Gore in June, 2007, he based his forecasts on "the naive (no-change) model; that is, the forecasts would be the same as the most recent year prior to the forecasts."
"We published a peer-reviewed paper showing that the forecasting procedures used by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change violated 72 of 89 relevant principles (e.g., 'provide full disclosure of methods'). The IPCC has been unable to explain why it violated such principles. In response, we developed a model that follows the principles. Because the climate is complex and poorly understood, our model predicts that global average temperatures will not change." [3]
January 27, 2012
Armstrong signed a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed titled "No Need to Panic About Global Warming." [4]
Other climate change skeptics who signed include Claude Allègre, Jan Breslow, William Happer, William Kininmonth, Richard Lindzen, James McGrath, Rodney Nichols, Burt Rutan, Harrison H. Schmitt, Nir Shaviv, Edward David, Michael Kelly, Henk Tennekes, and Antonino Zichichi.
Media transparency found that the Op-Ed had misrepresented the position of Yale economist William Nordhaus. SkepticalScience also did a comprehensive examination of the signatories and found that few of them had published anything in peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change. [5], [6]
May, 2010
Armstrong was a speaker at the Heartland Institute's 2010 International Conference on Climate Change. [7]
His speech was titled "Global Warming: A Scientific Forecasting Controversy
or a Political Movement?" [8]
March 30, 2009
Armstrong's signature is displayed alongside a full-page ad funded by the CATO institute that appeared in numerous newspapers including the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Chicago Tribune in 2009.
The ad criticizes President Obama's declaration that "few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change," stating that "with all due respect Mr. President, that is not true." It goes on to claim that "there has been no net global warming for over a decade," and that the dangers of climate change are "grossly overstated." [9]
March, 2009
Armstrong presented his research paper (co-authored by fellow skeptics Willie Soon and Kesten Green) on forecasting polar bear populations at the Heartland Institute's 2009 International Conference on Climate Change.
The paper, titled "Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit," was published in Marketing Papers in 2008 and criticized projections of declining polar bear populations.
A rebuttal of the paper by numerous scientists was published at Interfaces. [10]
March, 2008
Armstrong was a registered speaker at the Heartland Institute's 2008 International Conference on Climate Change.
January 30, 2008
Scott Armstrong, who co-authored a paper with Kesten Green and Willie Soon on polar bears, testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works committee on the subject of climate change:
June, 2007
In June, 2007, Armstrong extended a "Global Warming Challenge" to Al Gore. Although Al Gore declined the bet, Armstrong continued to track the hypothetical outcome on his website theclimatebet.com; he maintains that average temperatures will remain constant or drop rather than rise. [11]
Armstrong continues to use theclimatebet.com as a forum to post his research.
Scott Armstrong, Willie Soon, and Kesten Green released an "unpublished working paper" arguing that the current forecast data on polar bear populations is inadequate for making a decision as to whether polar bears should be listed as a threatened species under the US Endangered Species Act.
While the polar bear paper is not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, it has appeared on websites such as the Science and Public Policy Institute website, Spiked Online, and various blogs.
His report was critiqued by the science writers at Realclimate.org who accuse Armstrong of having read "none of the primary literature," only one chapter of the IPCC report and only "an un-peer reviewed hatchet job on the Stern Report" (a 2006 report on the economic impact of global warming completed by the British government). [12]
He also published a more recent paper: with Kesten Green in 2011 titled "Effects of the global warming alarm: A forecasting project using the structured analogies method" (PDF). Although this paper does not appear to be published in a peer-reviewed journal, Green and Armstrong do claim to "seek peer review from others, especially with evidence that would challenge our findings or conclusions."
"J. Scott Armstrong," Wharton University of Pennsylvania (Marketing Department). Accessed February 1, 2012.
"Dr. J. Scott Armstrong," (PDF) CV at Wharton University of Pennsylvania, Marketing Department, January, 2012.
"Let's Deal in Science and Facts," Wall Street Journal, November 19, 2010.
"No Need to Panic About Global Warming," The Wall Street Journal, January 27, 2012.
"The Journal Hires Dentists To Do Heart Surgery," Media Transparency, January 30, 2012.
"The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction," SkepticalScience, January 31, 2012.
ExxonSecrets Factsheet: "J. Scott Armstrong."
"4th International Conference on Climate Change" (PDF), The Heartland Institute. Accessed February 1, 2012, from University of Hartford server.
"Climate Change Reality," The Cato Institute.
Steven C. Amstrup, Hal Caswell, Eric DeWeaver, Ian Stirling, David C. Douglas, Bruce G. Marcot, and Christine M. Hunter. "Rebuttal of 'Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit'," Interfaces, Vol. 39, No. 4 (July/August 2009).
"The Global Warming Challenge," ClimateBet, June 16, 2007. Archived April 16, 2009.
"Green and Armstrong’s scientific forecast," RealClimate, July 20, 2007.
"J. Scott Armstrong," SourceWatch Profile.
Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, CV (PDF) at Wharton University, as of November, 2011.
"J. Scott Amstrong," Wikipedia profile.
J. Scott Armstrong, Kesten C. Green, Willie Soon."Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit," Science and Public Policy Institute, Monday, December 17, 2007.
"Research to date on Forecasting for the Manmade Global Warming Alarm Testimony to Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Committee on Science, Space and Technology – March 31, 2011" (PDF).
Testimony Before U.S. House Committee on Climate Change, Climate Depot, March 31, 2011.
Forecasting Problems for Global Warming Alarmists, Environment & Climate News (a publication of the Heartland Institute), July 1, 2010.
"Interview of the author about Persuasive Advertising," Fox News, May 25, 2010
"Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Forecasting Expert Asserts," ScienceDaily, May 8, 2008.
"Professor Scott Armstrong Exposing Inaccuracies in Polar Bear Studies". News of Interest.TV.
"Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Argue Forecasting Experts in INFORMS Journal" – INFORMS: The Institute For Operations Research and The Management Sciences". Informs.
Amstrup A.J., Casswell H., DeWeaver E., Stirling I., Douglas D.C., Marcot B.G., Hunter C.M. (2009). "Rebuttal of "Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit." Interfaces 39: 353–369.
Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.
There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.
THERE’S a section on the Heartland Institute’s website pointing readers to “Stuff We Wish We Wrote”.
After events over the last year or so, the chaps at the fossil fuel-funded “think tank” might want to add a new section with the title “Stuff We Wish We Hadn’t Wrote”.
The Heartland Institute, for those who don’t know, is a Chicago-based group promoting any view or position that argues we shouldn’t do anything about human-caused climate change. They run campaigns, hold conferences...
read more
