Yes, I thought of that. I'm not sure the clear separation of time
scales between dynamics and statistics makes the same kind of sense in
economics though.
In any case, +/- 20% is a lot of weather. Suppose I couldn't tell you
whether next week's barometer reading would be 800 mb or 1200 mb?
Would you have a panel of fifty meteorologists stating their choices
distributed roughly unifromly in that range? Would you consider them
experts? Would you publish them in Weather Week?
Exactly what distinguishes the fifty Dow numbers from fifty wild
guesses, except perhaps for the fact that all of the prognosticators
probably have considerably higher incomes than you or I?
mt
On 12/19/06, James Annan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This sounds rather like the "you can't predict the weather beyond a
week, why should we believe long term climate forecasts" fallacy. ISTM
that economic growth forecasts of about 2% pa (averaged over several
years) are probably of a similar credibility to global warming of 0.2C
per decade (again, averaged over several years).
(I just guessed at 2% pa, I don't claim this is the "consensus" or anything)
James
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
