Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists versus Scientific Forecasts

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Working Group One, a panel of experts established by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, issued its Fourth Assessment Report. The Report included predictions of dramatic increases in average world temperatures over the next 92 years and serious harm resulting from the predicted temperature increases. Using forecasting principles as our guide we asked: Are these forecasts a good basis for developing public policy? Our answer is “no”. To provide forecasts of climate change that are useful for policy-making, one would need to forecast (1) global temperature, (2) the effects of any temperature changes, and (3) the effects of feasible alternative policies. Proper forecasts of all three are necessary for rational policy making. 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. The forecasts in the Report were not the outcome of scientific procedures. In effect, they were the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. Research on forecasting has shown that experts’ predictions are not useful in situations involving uncertainly and complexity. We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts of global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder

Counterfactual history, management and organizations: Reflections and new directions

This article reflects on the papers published in the Symposium on 'Counterfactual History in Management and Organizations'. After describing the background to the symposium we review some important themes in the multidisciplinary domain of counterfactuals. We discuss each of the papers published in the symposium and set out our views on future directions for counterfactual history in the management and organization studies discipline

Setting the Foundations for Theoretical Progress toward Understanding the Role of Values in Organisational Behaviour: Commentary on “Values at Work: The Impact of Personal Values in Organisations” by Arieli, Sagiv, and Roccas

Arieli, Sagiv, and Roccas's lead article provides a timely and important review of the role of individual values and their role in organizations. At the same time as identifying several key areas of progress, the review identifies significant gaps. In this commentary, we focus on additional gaps that merit attention. In particular, we highlight a need for greater theoretical clarity in the literature about the concrete ways in which values are instantiated in different organizational contexts, roles, and cultural settings. We argue that the growing importance of values in studies of organizational contexts would be well‐served by more precision in how they are conceptualized and operationalized in studies of organizational behaviour

People as intuitive prosecutors: The impact of social-control goals on attributions of responsibility

10.1016/j.jesp.2006.02.009Journal of Experimental Social Psychology432195-209JESP