For those of you that follow the raging global warming debate here is a must read...it’s 21 pages, some of it technical, but most people will understand the underlying issues.

Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists or Scientific Forecasts

Here is an excerpt from the Abstract:

“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.”

Excerpt of Summary of audit findings:

“The many violations provide further evidence that the IPCC authors were unaware of evidence-based principles for forecasting. If they were aware of them, it would have been incumbent on them to present evidence to justify their departures from the principles. They did not do so. We conclude that because the forecasting processes examined in Chapter 8 overlook scientific evidence on forecasting, the IPCC forecasts of climate change are not scientific.

We invite others to provide evidence-based audits of what they believe to be scientific forecasts relevant to climate change. These can be posted on web sites to ensure that readers have access to the audits. As with peer review, we will require all relevant information on the people who conduct the audits prior to posting the audits.”

While many in the “mob” are rushing to make bold moves to try to prevent global warming they are forgetting to look at the data and determine if it is scientifically valid.