Ever since I began systematically posting climate forecasts and updating the results (and therefore disclosing the skill of the forecast), I’ve been motivated to study related if any work products by others. This site profiles a few of the climate forecast skill disclosures by others. Those posts establish this site as a type of fact-checking resource in its own right. In my view, this simply goes with the primary scientific work I engage in, to check the facts and notions and to ensure that the work is at least reproducible by independent peers.
I’ve also been seeking information which might aid my research and that I think should be reproducible on ozone, bias assessments, early springs, streamflow histories, and model calibrations. In some cases of public promotions, the press and policy makers appear to take a stab at evaluating the veracity of any climate change.
I’ve taken a brief look at a recent article by the Annenberg Public Policy Center. , which challenges a claim that a warmer planet makes a moister planet. I think the claim has some value given my own research although I’m not prepared to go so far as the politician mentioned in their article.
FactCheck.org asserts that Mr. King is flat out wrong. I can speculate they have followed the fact-checking guidelines established by the previous example of the featured image*. This appears to involve finding opposing experts. This would be understandable because scientists ultimately own climate change promotions. But how could a lay organization to climate change develop a definitive view from this practice alone?
I’ve reached out to FactCheck.org to confirm the method to date. Certainly it’s not trivial to establish the veracity of many climate changes and the more transparent our methods, the better our collective forecasting aims will be.
927total visits,1visits today