The Unscientific Basis of Global Warming Forecast Models

11 05 2008

The National Center Policy Analysis ( has made public a scientific study explaining how the long term climate forecast models cited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Fourth Assessment Report (here) grievously violated accepted scientific principles of forecasting. The study sponsored by the NCPA critically critiques the forecasting methodology relied upon in the IPCC report. It is entitled “Global Warming: Expert’s Opinions versus Scientific Forecasts.“. A copy of the NCPA study can be found here.

A Caribou in foreground, with Mount McKinley

That the forecasting methodology relied upon by the IPCC in its Fourth Assessment report is in error and invalidates their global warming forecasts is of critical importance. As cited on the IPCC website (, the IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”. The ongoing work of IPCC is literally a cornerstone of the body of evidence claimed by global warming advocates to justify that a “scientific consensus” exists supporting their global warming viewpoints and initiatives. That the presumptions of the scientific models used by global warming advocates to forecast negative longterm environmental impacts from CO2 emissions are suspect is of critical importance to the credibility of pro-environmental change viewpoints in the public global warming debate.

In so many words, the NPCA study finds that the data, the models, and the unbiased nature of the scientists involved in developing the IPCC Fourth Assessment report are all suspect or “unreliable”.

In future posts I will discuss this report and why adherence to scientifically reliable and defendable forecasting principles is crucial to the development of credible forecasts in general, and the reliability of currently available climatological forecasts of global warming impacts in particular.


In addition, following are three articles presenting evidence against the popular consensus of global warming among the majority of those in the scientific community and a large part of the popular press.

The first article is from The American Thinker (, an online conservative information source. On May 5, 2008, author Marc Shephard presents an article titled “Are Global Warming Alarmists Pulling a Cool Fast One?” (here).

In The Telegraph ( author Christopher Booker has written two recent articles questioning global warming. The first is titled “Watch the web for climate change truths.” (here), and the second is “Stop the CO2 scare, before it’s too late” (here).

Picture of Mount McKinley (i.e., “Denali”), Alaska, USA

Another Mount McKinley picture (just for good measure)






%d bloggers like this: