Verification, Statistical Analysis, Meteorology, Economics and AGW...

polifrog

We often hear tongue in cheek comparisons made between meteorology and economics. There is merit the comparison and the similarities between the two fields of study help illuminate a difference that points to the utility of statistics as a tool. Weather forecasters use statistics regularly, but do so honestly while AGW and economists do not. That honesty is born of real world verification of statistical analysis and dishonesty born of being freed of the same.

Verification is an integral part of the scientific process, but neither AGW or economics seem to be held accountable for their statistically based projections and are hence free to engage in propaganda via dark side of statistical analysis and enjoy its electrolysis like ability to impart the patina of credible scientific analysis on what would otherwise be immediately recognized as fraud.

Meteorology, however, uses statistics differently. Honestly, via verification.

Economists, like proponents of AGW use statistics dishonestly. Each is freed from verification of statistical analysis by the nature of their field of study; verifications of AGW forecasts are hidden in the distant future while verifications of economic forecasts and observations are hidden in the very complexity of economics and the endless perspectives one can derive from that complexity.

From this ability to avoid verification arises the dishonest use of statistics in defense of dearly held beliefs. This in combination with fields of study being predominantly populated by like minded individuals results in the loss of clout of entire fields of study.

Once again bias in academia damages academia itself, in this case by removing the layer of protection afforded by diversity of thought and the verification that arises against abuse of statistical analysis.

out