If you reply to this long (10 kB) post please don't hit the reply
button unless you prune the copy of this post that may appear in your
reply down to a few relevant lines, otherwise the entire already
archived post may be needlessly resent to subscribers.
Brian Hauser (2011) in his Physoc post "NYT Letter from J Scott
Armstrong" wrote [my insert at ". . . . . .[[insert]]. . . ."; my
CAPS]:
"The context of this letter. . . . . [[Armstrong (2011)]]. . . . . is
perhaps clear from its content. It refers to a recent article by
Paul Krugman (Apr 4). . . . . .[[Krugman (2011]. . . . ridiculing the
choices for those invited for testimony on climate change in a recent
hearing in congress. HAS ANYONE HEARD OF THIS FELLOW? While I
appreciate that nonscientists can bring important perspectives to
what we do (if anything) about climate change, I find his
recommendation troubling, and perhaps justification for Krugman's
ridicule."
Hauser quotes Armstrong's letter rather than simply point readers to
<http://nyti.ms/fHsrJk>.
Who is J. Scott Armstrong? A Google search for ["J. Scott Armstrong"
forecasting] (with the quotes ". . . ." but without the square
brackets [. . . .]) yielded 39,800 hits on 12 April 2011 09:00-0700
at <http://bit.ly/dXw7c5>.
After carefully studying each of the 39,800 hits ;-) I decided that
the best was the first: PFSIG (2011) "Political Forecasting Special
Interest Group," wherein is stated:
"Professor Armstrong is internationally known for his pioneering work
on forecasting methods. He is author of "Long-Range Forecasting". . .
..[[Armstrong (1985)]]. . . ., the most frequently cited book on
forecasting methods, and "Principles of Forecasting". . . .
[[Armstrong (2001), voted the "Favorite Book - First 25 Years" by
researchers and practitioners associated with the International
Institute of Forecasters. He is a co-founder of the "Journal of
Forecasting," the "International Journal of Forecasting," the
"International Symposium on Forecasting," and
forecastingprinciples.com. . . . .[[ <http://bit.ly/giUD8M>]]. . . ..
He is a co-developer of new methods including rule-based forecasting,
causal forces for extrapolation, simulated interaction, and
structured analogies."
How could Krugman (2011) possibly ridicule the congressional
testimony of anyone with the above credentials? Krugman wrote
[bracketed by lines "KKKK. . . ."; my insert at ". . . . .
.[[insert]]. . . ."; my CAPS]:
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
SO THE JOKE BEGINS LIKE THIS: An economist, a lawyer and a PROFESSOR
OF MARKETING . . . .[[J. Scott Armstrong]]. . . walk into a room.
What's the punch line? They were three of the five "expert witnesses"
Republicans called for last week's Congressional hearing on climate
science. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The ringers (i.e., nonscientists) at last week's hearing weren't of
quite the same caliber. . . .[[as Ron Paul's lead witness on monetary
policy. . . best known for writing a book denouncing Abraham Lincoln
as a "horrific tyrant" - and for advocating a new secessionist
movement as the appropriate response to the "new American
fascialistic state"]]. . . . , but their prepared testimony still had
some memorable moments.
One was the lawyer's declaration that the E.P.A. can't declare that
greenhouse gas emissions are a health threat, because these emissions
have been rising for a century, but public health has improved over
the same period. I am not making this up.
OH, AND THE MARKETING PROFESSOR. . . .[[ J. Scott Armstrong]]. . . ,
in providing a list of past cases of "analogies to the alarm over
dangerous manmade global warming" - presumably intended to show why
we should ignore the worriers - INCLUDED PROBLEMS SUCH AS ACID RAIN
AND THE OZONE HOLE THAT HAVE BEEN CONTAINED PRECISELY THANKS TO
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
For years now, large numbers of prominent scientists have been
warning, with increasing urgency, that if we continue with business
as usual, the results will be very bad, perhaps catastrophic. They
could be wrong. But if you're going to assert that they are in fact
wrong, you have a moral responsibility to approach the topic with
high seriousness and an open mind. After all, if the scientists are
right, you'll be doing a great deal of damage.
But what we had, instead of high seriousness, was a farce: a
supposedly crucial hearing stacked with people who had no business
being there and instant ostracism for a climate skeptic . . . . .[[
Richard Muller. . . . . . .[[<http://bit.ly/hsU3AY>]] . . . of
Berkeley, a physicist who has gotten into the climate skeptic game"
who was actually willing to change his mind in the face of evidence.
. . . . [[see e.g., the Guardian report at <http://bit.ly/hiBDdQ>]].
. . As I said, no surprise: as Upton Sinclair pointed out long ago,
it's difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary
depends on his not understanding it.
But it's terrifying to realize that this kind of cynical careerism -
for that's what it is - has probably ensured that we won't do
anything about climate change until catastrophe is already upon us.
So on second thought, I was wrong when I said that the joke was on
the G.O.P.; actually, THE JOKE IS ON THE HUMAN RACE
KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
BTW - on a trivial note - I'm continually depressed by the reticence
of editors, authors, and discussion-list posters to accept the
precious gift of physicist-turned-computer-scientist Tim Berners-Lee
<http://bit.ly/dPFtPa> that allows articles and reports to be brought
to a reader's screen with the click of a mouse (instead of hours
searching though dusty stacks - or more likely not even seeing the
referenced material and remaining ignorant of its contents).
REFERENCES [All URL's accessed on 12 April 2011 and shortened by
<http://bit.ly/>.]
Armstrong, J.S. 1985. "Long-Range Forecasting: From Crystal Ball to
Computer." John Wiley, 2nd ed., Amazon.com information at
<http://amzn.to/hgq61I>.
Armstrong, J.S. 2001. "Principles of Forecasting - A Handbook for
Researchers and Practitioners (International Series in Operations
Research & Management Science)" Springer, publisher's summary at
<http://bit.ly/eg7Mad >. Amazon.com information at
<http://amzn.to/flvEQW>, note the searchable "Look Inside" feature.
Armstrong, J.S. 2011. "A Forecasting Expert Testifies About Climate
Change," 10 April, letter to the New York Times; online at
<http://nyti.ms/fHsrJk>.
Houser, B. 2011. "NYT Letter from J Scott Armstrong," Physoc message
of 11 Apr 2011 13:24:08-0700; online at <http://bit.ly/hJCoxJ>. To
access the archives of PHYSOC one needs to subscribe :-(, but that
takes only a few minutes by clicking on <http://bit.ly/dVm2AM> and
then clicking on "Join or leave the list (or change settings)." If
you're busy, then subscribe using the "NOMAIL" option under
"Miscellaneous." Then, as a subscriber, you may access the archives
and/or post messages at any time, while receiving NO MAIL from the
list!
Krugman, P. 2011. "The Truth, Still Inconvenient," New York Times
Op-Ed; online at <http://nyti.ms/hkEfmi>. 428 Comments (as of 12
April 2011 08:35-0700) are at <http://nyti.ms/dRm3uR>.
PFSIG. 2011. "Political Forecasting Special Interest Group," online
at <http://bit.ly/eB4Pft>.