= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
VipulNaik comments on [QUESTION]: What are your views on climate change, and how did you form them? - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (143)
I think it's better to make forecasts that are later proved wrong, then acknowledge that they are wrong, make new forecasts and appropriately calibrate the new forecasts based on the lesson learned in humility from the first wrong forecast.
Trenberth in particular seems to be a fairly honest and open climate scientist, in that he made an explicit forecast, then later admitted a change of mind. He's also the person who admitted (within an email leaked by Climategate) that there was a problem with balancing the energy budget, and he later publicly noted the same, and tried to come up with an explanation.
The problem isn't with people making wrong forecasts, it's with people (a) refusing to make forecasts while still implicity doing so by claiming near-certainty about the future and seeking action based on that, or (b) making forecasts and insisting on the forecasts being treated as correct without an external test of validity or a past record of forecasting expertise.
See also:
http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2012/05/the_bettors_oat.html
Yes, of course it's better to try and fail, and try again, and fail better...
The situation with global warming reminds me very much of a recent Yvain post on his blog about the "motte-and-bailey doctrine". I think the AGW proponents use this technique extensively.