I'm sympathetic to the case, made by @zeynep and others, that forecasting has less value when the polls regularly produce big misses.
But some forecasters, like the Nates, have avoided triumphalism and been upfront about the limitations of their models.
Others, not so much... https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/1324507561308114947 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @musicologyman @Yascha_Mounk
Absolutely the opposite. Weather forecasting has tons and tons and tons more data, the data is reliable, and the modelers can do model validation all the time, and the forecast does not change odds of rain. People should understand the huge differences between the two.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @musicologyman @Yascha_Mounk
There are perfectly good reasons to treat weather forecasts as useful information. You can't model rare events with data that's this off the mark and unfixable by any amount of post-hoc tweaking. That's the intellectually honest caveat we need.
0 replies 1 retweet 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
Enormous amounts of post-hoc tweaking is what every poll and pollster does, and has been doing for about a decade and more.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.