Jump to content

J. Scott Armstrong: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 52: Line 52:
* Armstrong extended a Global Warming Challenge to [[Al Gore]] in June 2007,<ref>[http://theclimatebet.com Global warming challenge]</ref><ref name="nydn"/> in the style of the [[Simon-Ehrlich wager]]. Each side was to place $10,000 ($20,000 total) in trust, with the winner being determined by future temperature change. Gore declined the wager, stating that he does not gamble.<ref>{{cite web|last=Hume |first=Brit |url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287045,00.html |title=One Expert Is Willing to Bet Money Al Gore Is Wrong About Global Warming – Brit Hume &#124; Special Report |publisher=FOXNews.com |date=2007-06-27 |accessdate=2010-04-16}}</ref> Climatologist [[Gavin Schmidt]] described Armstrong's wager as "essentially a bet on year to year weather noise" rather than climate change.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/green-and-armstrongs-scientific-forecast/ |title=Green and Armstrong’s scientific forecast – Realclimate articel by Gavin Schmidt |publisher=Realclimate.org |date= |accessdate=2010-04-19}}</ref> The terms of the bet were that there would be no change in global mean temperature over the next ten years.<ref>http://www.hubdub.com/m30611/Who_will_win_the_Climate_Bet__Al_Gore_or_Wharton_Professor_Scott_Armstrong</ref>{{Verify credibility|date=April 2010}} Armstrong's website, which had been declaring monthly and yearly "winners" of the hypothetical bet, stopped updating the status of the "bet" in March of 2010, after Armstrong had lost six of the seven months prior. He has since lost his bet for April, May, June, and July of 2010, making Armstrong the loser for 2010 as a whole.
* Armstrong extended a Global Warming Challenge to [[Al Gore]] in June 2007,<ref>[http://theclimatebet.com Global warming challenge]</ref><ref name="nydn"/> in the style of the [[Simon-Ehrlich wager]]. Each side was to place $10,000 ($20,000 total) in trust, with the winner being determined by future temperature change. Gore declined the wager, stating that he does not gamble.<ref>{{cite web|last=Hume |first=Brit |url=http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,287045,00.html |title=One Expert Is Willing to Bet Money Al Gore Is Wrong About Global Warming – Brit Hume &#124; Special Report |publisher=FOXNews.com |date=2007-06-27 |accessdate=2010-04-16}}</ref> Climatologist [[Gavin Schmidt]] described Armstrong's wager as "essentially a bet on year to year weather noise" rather than climate change.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/green-and-armstrongs-scientific-forecast/ |title=Green and Armstrong’s scientific forecast – Realclimate articel by Gavin Schmidt |publisher=Realclimate.org |date= |accessdate=2010-04-19}}</ref> The terms of the bet were that there would be no change in global mean temperature over the next ten years.<ref>http://www.hubdub.com/m30611/Who_will_win_the_Climate_Bet__Al_Gore_or_Wharton_Professor_Scott_Armstrong</ref>{{Verify credibility|date=April 2010}} Armstrong's website, which had been declaring monthly and yearly "winners" of the hypothetical bet, stopped updating the status of the "bet" in March of 2010, after Armstrong had lost six of the seven months prior. He has since lost his bet for April, May, June, and July of 2010, making Armstrong the loser for 2010 as a whole.


* Armstrong has published research and testified before Congress on forecasts of polar bear populations, concluding that previous estimates were too flawed to justify listing the bear as an endangered species.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www3.informs.org/article.php?id=1383 |title=Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Argue Forecasting Experts in INFORMS Journal – INFORMS: The Institute For Operations Research and The Management Sciences |publisher=Informs |date= |accessdate=2010-04-19}}</ref><ref name="scon"/><ref name="newof"/> In an evaluation of Armstrong and other authors’ criticism of polar bear population forecasts Amstrup and other authors, writing a response in the journal Interfaces, concluded that all of the claims made by Armstrong, which included lack of independence of the [[USGS]], were either mistaken or misleading.<ref name=amstrup2009/>
* Armstrong has published articles and testified before Congress on forecasts of polar bear populations, arguing that previous estimates were too flawed to justify listing the bear as an endangered species.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www3.informs.org/article.php?id=1383 |title=Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Argue Forecasting Experts in INFORMS Journal – INFORMS: The Institute For Operations Research and The Management Sciences |publisher=Informs |date= |accessdate=2010-04-19}}</ref><ref name="scon"/><ref name="newof"/> In an evaluation of Armstrong and other authors’ criticism of polar bear population forecasts Amstrup and other authors, writing a response in the journal Interfaces, concluded that all of the claims made by Armstrong, which included lack of independence of the [[USGS]], were either mistaken or misleading.<ref name=amstrup2009/>


==Marketing and advertising==
==Marketing and advertising==

Revision as of 02:35, 4 August 2010

J. Scott Armstrong
Born (1937-03-26) March 26, 1937 (age 87)
NationalityAmerican
Alma materMIT
Carnegie Mellon
Lehigh University
Scientific career
FieldsMarketing, Advertising
InstitutionsThe Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania

J. Scott Armstrong (born March 26, 1937), Ph.D., is an author, forecasting and marketing expert,[1][2] [3] and a professor of Marketing at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Known for his work on forecasting, Armstrong is the author of several works, including the most frequently cited book on forecasting.[4][5]

In 2007, Armstrong made headlines by challenging Al Gore to a $10,000 bet on yearly temperatures, which he refers to as "The Global Warming Challenge."[6][7][3] He has also testified before Congress on flaws in forecasts of polar bear populations.[4][8]

Armstrong is the co-founder of the site advertisingprinciples.com,[9] which in 2004, won the MERLOT award for best business education site.[10]

Education and background

Armstrong received his B.A. in applied science (1959) and his B.S. in industrial engineering (1960) from Lehigh University. In 1965, he received his M.S. in industrial administration from Carnegie-Mellon University. He received his Ph.D. in management from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1968.[11]

He has taught in Thailand, Switzerland, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, Argentina, Japan, and other countries.[11]

Forecasting

  • Professor Armstrong is the author of Long-Range Forecasting, the most frequently cited book on forecasting methods,[5][unreliable source?] and the editor and co-author of Principles of Forecasting, which has received positive reviews.[12][13]
  • Armstrong has applied his findings about combining forecasts to political forecasting. It correctly forecast the outcome of the 2004 U.S. presidential election, and came within 0.2% of the actual election outcome.[15][16]
  • Armstrong examined the methods used by the IPCC to make projections. In an article published in Energy & Environment, a non-peer-reviewed journal known for publishing articles critical of the theory of global warming, he claimed that the IPCC and climate scientists have ignored the scientific literature on forecasting principles.[3][17][18] Armstrong wrote:
When we inspected the 17 [forecasting] articles, we found that none of them referred to the scientific literature on forecasting methods.
It is difficult to understand how scientific forecasting could be conducted without reference to the research literature on how to make forecasts. One would expect to see empirical justification for the forecasting methods that were used. We concluded that climate forecasts are informed by the modelers’ experience and by their models—but that they are unaided by the application of forecasting principles. (page 1015) [1]
However, according to Amstrup and others' published rebuttal in the journal Interfaces:
Green and Armstrong (2007, p.997) also concluded that the thousands of refereed scientific publications that comprise the basis of the IPCC reports and represent the state of scientific knowledge on past, present and future climates "were not the outcome of scientific procedures." Such cavalier statements appear to reflect an overt attempt by the authors of those reports to cast doubt about the reality of human-caused global warming ... [19]
  • Armstrong extended a Global Warming Challenge to Al Gore in June 2007,[20][7] in the style of the Simon-Ehrlich wager. Each side was to place $10,000 ($20,000 total) in trust, with the winner being determined by future temperature change. Gore declined the wager, stating that he does not gamble.[21] Climatologist Gavin Schmidt described Armstrong's wager as "essentially a bet on year to year weather noise" rather than climate change.[22] The terms of the bet were that there would be no change in global mean temperature over the next ten years.[23][unreliable source?] Armstrong's website, which had been declaring monthly and yearly "winners" of the hypothetical bet, stopped updating the status of the "bet" in March of 2010, after Armstrong had lost six of the seven months prior. He has since lost his bet for April, May, June, and July of 2010, making Armstrong the loser for 2010 as a whole.
  • Armstrong has published articles and testified before Congress on forecasts of polar bear populations, arguing that previous estimates were too flawed to justify listing the bear as an endangered species.[24][4][8] In an evaluation of Armstrong and other authors’ criticism of polar bear population forecasts Amstrup and other authors, writing a response in the journal Interfaces, concluded that all of the claims made by Armstrong, which included lack of independence of the USGS, were either mistaken or misleading.[19]

Marketing and advertising

In 1989, a University of Maryland study ranked Professor Armstrong among the top 15 marketing professors in the U.S. based on study using peer ratings, citations, and publications.[25][self-published source?] He serves or has served on Editorial positions for the Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, the Journal of Business Research, Interfaces, and other journals. He was awarded the Society for Marketing Advances Distinguished Scholar Award for 2000.

Armstrong's works are frequently cited; his "first-author" citation rate currently averages over 200 per year.[25][self-published source?]

Armstrong has received the MERLOT Award for Exemplary Online Learning Resources as "Best Internet Site in Business Education" for 2004.[10]

Selected publications

Books

  • Long-Range Forecasting (ISBN 978-0-47-103002-7)
  • Principles of Forecasting: A Handbook for Researchers and Practitioners (ISBN 978-0-79-237930-0)

Papers

Forecasting

Marketing

Scientific methods

News media
Other media

References

  1. ^ sueddeutsche.de GmbH, Munich, Germany. "Wahlforschung – Zauberformeln für den Wählerwillen – Wissen". sueddeutsche.de. Retrieved 2010-04-19.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ By topeditor (2007-09-05). "Grading the Forecasts of 'Experts'". Blogs.wsj.com. Retrieved 2010-04-19.
  3. ^ a b c "spiked | Put your money where your 'myth' is". Spiked-online.com. Retrieved 2010-04-19.
  4. ^ a b c "Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Forecasting Expert Asserts". Sciencedaily.com. 2008-05-10. Retrieved 2010-04-19.
  5. ^ a b http://collegestats.org/articles/2010/02/25-most-famous-college-professors-teaching-today/
  6. ^ http://www.theclimatebet.com/
  7. ^ a b "Penn prof still hot to tackle Al Gore on global warming". Nydailynews.com. 2008-03-01. Retrieved 2010-04-19.
  8. ^ a b c "Professor Scott Armstrong Exposing Inaccuracies in Polar Bear Studies". News of Interest.TV. Retrieved 2010-04-19.
  9. ^ "Site Directors". Advertisingprinciples.com. Retrieved 2010-04-19.
  10. ^ a b "MERLOT Awards: Exemplary Learning Materials". Taste.merlot.org. Retrieved 2010-04-19.
  11. ^ a b "Welcome To". Jscottarmstrong.com. Retrieved 2010-04-19.
  12. ^ Journal of Marketing Research, XXXIX (2003)
  13. ^ Springer Reviews
  14. ^ (Journal of Forecasting, 1,1982, p. 1–2)
  15. ^ "COMBINING METHODS TO FORECAST THE 2004 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION". Allacademic.com. Retrieved 2010-04-19.
  16. ^ http://www.uwf.edu/govt/facultyforums/documents/SPSA10thdraft1-10-05.pdf
  17. ^ "Principles of Forecasting – Public policy" (PDF). Forecastingprinciples.com. Retrieved 2010-04-16.
  18. ^ http://ff.org/images/stories/sciencecenter/armstrong_presentation.pdf
  19. ^ a b Amstrup A.J., Casswell H., DeWeaver E., Stirling I., Douglas D.C., Marcot B.G., Hunter C.M. (2009). "Rebuttal of "Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit"". Interfaces. 39: 353–369. doi:10.1287/inte.1090.0444.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  20. ^ Global warming challenge
  21. ^ Hume, Brit (2007-06-27). "One Expert Is Willing to Bet Money Al Gore Is Wrong About Global Warming – Brit Hume | Special Report". FOXNews.com. Retrieved 2010-04-16.
  22. ^ "Green and Armstrong's scientific forecast – Realclimate articel by Gavin Schmidt". Realclimate.org. Retrieved 2010-04-19.
  23. ^ http://www.hubdub.com/m30611/Who_will_win_the_Climate_Bet__Al_Gore_or_Wharton_Professor_Scott_Armstrong
  24. ^ "Federal Polar Bear Research Critically Flawed, Argue Forecasting Experts in INFORMS Journal – INFORMS: The Institute For Operations Research and The Management Sciences". Informs. Retrieved 2010-04-19.
  25. ^ a b "J. Scott Armstrong, Professor of Marketing – The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania". Marketing.wharton.upenn.edu. 2008-11-18. Retrieved 2010-04-16.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J._Scott_Armstrong&oldid=377047888"