Sentences with phrase «made wrong predictions»

But the promoters of the AGW scare have all made wrong predictions, claiming that global warming would continue.

Many of them who made wrong predictions then are confident enough to continue with their market timing forecasts.

This was meant to prevent situations like the one created by COMPAS, which made wrong predictions about black and white defendants at different rates.

Few experts would predict that general relativity would make the wrong prediction.

A 2016 ProPublica investigation found that COMPAS, a tool used by many courtrooms to predict whether a criminal will break the law again, wrongly predicted that black defendants would reoffend nearly twice as often as it made that wrong prediction for whites.

Generally it is really attractive for new traders who are fascinated by 80 % profit offer; make wrong predictions and lose the real capital itself, thus this requires a vast experience and observation skills.

Not exact matches

I've looked previously at some of the arguments made by the housing bears, for example in «Housing crash predictions using wrong indicators.»

200 years ago, economists made a prediction, and we got it wrong.

Chapter 7 deals with a famous textual issue of whether David actually killed Goliath or not (cf. 2 Sam 21:19), and chapter 8 makes the case that Jesus was wrong in many of His predictions about the future.

This leads him to his key point: «Let us make no mistake; the data we now have at hand should serve as a dire warning: Unless we act decisively, many of today's converts will be one - generation Jews — Jews with non-Jewish parents and non-Jewish children,» But Sarna concludes on a note that most Jews would find more hopeful: «Learned Jews and non-Jews have been making dire predictions about the future (or end) of the Jewish people for literally thousands of years — long before William Wirt and long after him — and, as we have seen, their predictions have proved consistently wrong.

They have to make specific predictions, and often the course of events proves them wrong.

I'll enjoy their press on Sunday, then their press release saying that they miscalulated, YET AGAIN, then have to put up with their idiocy, YET AGAIN, when they make an updated, corrected, prediction that will ALSO be wrong.

Time for some brutal honesty... this team, as it stands, is in no better position to compete next season than they were 12 months ago, minus the fact that some fans have been easily snowed by the acquisition of Lacazette, the free transfer LB and the release of Sanogo... if you look at the facts carefully you will see a team that still has far more questions than answers... to better show what I mean by this statement I will briefly discuss the current state of affairs on a position - by - position basis... in goal we have 4 potential candidates, but in reality we have only 1 option with any real future and somehow he's the only one we have actively tried to get rid of for years because he and his father were a little too involved on social media and he got caught smoking (funny how people still defend Wiltshire under the same and far worse circumstances)... you would think we would want to keep any goaltender that Juventus had interest in, as they seem to have a pretty good history when it comes to that position... as far as the defenders on our current roster there are only a few individuals whom have the skill and / or youth worthy of our time and / or investment, as such we should get rid of anyone who doesn't meet those simple requirements, which means we should get rid of DeBouchy, Gibbs, Gabriel, Mertz and loan out Chambers to see if last seasons foray with Middlesborough was an anomaly or a prediction of things to come... some fans have lamented wildly about the return of Mertz to the starting lineup due to his FA Cup performance but these sort of pie in the sky meanderings are indicative of what's wrong with this club and it's wishy - washy fan - base... in addition to these moves the club should aggressively pursue the acquisition of dominant and mobile CB to stabilize an all too fragile defensive group that has self - destructed on numerous occasions over the past 5 seasons... moving forward and building on our need to re-establish our once dominant presence throughout the middle of the park we need to target a CDM then do whatever it takes to get that player into the fold without any of the usual nickel and diming we have become famous for (this kind of ruthless haggling has cost us numerous special players and certainly can't help make the player in question feel good about the way their future potential employer feels about them)... in order for us to become dominant again we need to be strong up the middle again from Goalkeeper to CB to DM to ACM to striker, like we did in our most glorious years before and during Wenger's reign... with this in mind, if we want Ozil to be that dominant attacking midfielder we can't keep leaving him exposed to constant ridicule about his lack of defensive prowess and provide him with the proper players in the final third... he was never a good defensive player in Real or with the German National squad and they certainly didn't suffer as a result of his presence on the pitch... as for the rest of the midfield the blame falls squarely in the hands of Wenger and Gazidis, the fact that Ramsey, Ox, Sanchez and even Ozil were allowed to regularly start when none of the aforementioned had more than a year left under contract is criminal for a club of this size and financial might... the fact that we could find money for Walcott and Xhaka, who weren't even guaranteed starters, means that our whole business model needs a complete overhaul... for me it's time to get rid of some serious deadweight, even if it means selling them below what you believe their market value is just to simply right this ship and change the stagnant culture that currently exists... this means saying goodbye to Wiltshire, Elneny, Carzola, Walcott and Ramsey... everyone, minus Elneny, have spent just as much time on the training table as on the field of play, which would be manageable if they weren't so inconsistent from a performance standpoint (excluding Carzola, who is like the recent version of Rosicky — too bad, both will be deeply missed)... in their places we need to bring in some proven performers with no history of injuries... up front, although I do like the possibilities that a player like Lacazette presents, the fact that we had to wait so many years to acquire some true quality at the striker position falls once again squarely at the feet of Wenger... this issue highlights the ultimate scam being perpetrated by this club since the arrival of Kroenke: pretend your a small market club when it comes to making purchases but milk your fans like a big market club when it comes to ticket prices and merchandising... I believe the reason why Wenger hasn't pursued someone of Henry's quality, minus a fairly inexpensive RVP, was that he knew that they would demand players of a similar ilk to be brought on board and that wasn't possible when the business model was that of a «selling» club... does it really make sense that we could only make a cheeky bid for Suarez, or that we couldn't get Higuain over the line when he was being offered up for half the price he eventually went to Juve for, or that we've only paid any interest to strikers who were clearly not going to press their current teams to let them go to Arsenal like Benzema or Cavani... just part of the facade that finally came crashing down when Sanchez finally called their bluff... the fact remains that no one wants to win more than Sanchez, including Wenger, and although I don't agree with everything that he has done off the field, I would much rather have Alexis front and center than a manager who has clearly bought into the Kroenke model in large part due to the fact that his enormous ego suggests that only he could accomplish great things without breaking the bank... unfortunately that isn't possible anymore as the game has changed quite dramatically in the last 15 years, which has left a largely complacent and complicit Wenger on the outside looking in... so don't blame those players who demanded more and were left wanting... don't blame those fans who have tried desperately to raise awareness for several years when cracks began to appear... place the blame at the feet of those who were well aware all along of the potential pitfalls of just such a plan but continued to follow it even when it was no longer a financial necessity, like it ever really was...

The role of the fans at this juncture it our club's history appears lost of most individuals who frequent this site following a victory... I'll explain further, but first I must state that I have cared for this club dearly for the better part of 35 years, so my critique is both measured and carefully considered... there is certainly nothing wrong with celebrating a victory, regardless of the circumstances, but making wild predictions or fawning over players after a lacklustre win solves very little, if anything it enables those in charge to continue down the road too frequently traveled

While a prediction can always go wrong, it's not so much the wrong prediction that makes the article ludicrous, rather the manner in which the article was written.

Given my recent predictions in Croydon were so disasterously wrong I won't try and make any predictions so far in advance!

«We've made a prediction on the basis of our best theories, and it is wrong, wildly wrong,» says Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist at the California Institute of Technology.

Performance of them increases, but sometimes they make mistakes like false alarms, misdetections, or wrong predictions.

The meeting, he said, was meant to make clear that both were wrong and that no deterministic prediction could be made.

«The predictions animal models make are often wrong,» says Don Ingber, who heads the human - on - a-chip project at Harvard's Wyss Institute.

All the dregs are at it, making dire 100 - year predictions based on silly climate models that have been proven to be wrong time and again.

All the dregs are at it, making dire 100 - year predictions based on silly climate models that have been proven to be wrong -LSB-...]

BuzzFeed «The 16 Most Epic Faces Jennifer Lawrence Made on Oscar Night»... my favorite (pictured below) is the «i can't remember your name» face Slate who was wrongest in their Oscar predictions?

This prediction will puzzle, upset, and maybe infuriate a great many readers — and, of course, it could turn out to be wrong — but enough clues, tips, tidbits, and intuitions have converged in recent weeks that I feel obligated to make it: I expect that PARCC and Smarter Balanced (the two federally subsidized consortia of states that are developing new assessments meant to be aligned with Common Core standards) will fade away, eclipsed and supplanted by long - established yet fleet - footed testing firms that already possess the infrastructure, relationships, and durability that give them huge advantages in the competition for state and district business.

Rusch explains why predictions of the death of publishing were wrong, and how traditional publishers are now making more money while their authors are making less.

I should mention, however, that more than any previous year when I've made these predictions, I could well be 100 % wrong about every last one of these choices.

I like being sharp rather than fuzzy, but I hate making sharp predictions if I know that the probability of my being wrong is high.

The general gist is that the predictions are faulty, always end up being wrong, or I'm just schilling for «the man» — the guy who's going to make a bundle on your loss.

Important piece, because people watch PIMCO on the tube, and think that they make money off of their economic predictions, which are often wrong.

Binary options — the word binary means that there are two possible outcomes you will make a profit if your prediction is correct or if your prediction is wrong you will lose money.

However, EMH theorists counter that while EMH makes a precise prediction about a market based upon the data, BF usually does not go beyond saying that EMH is wrong.

If the prediction that the stock will fall is wrong then you are still earning fixed income on the debt and are able to convert it into stock at the higher price to cover the short sale eliminating, or reducing, the loss made on the short sale.

But as Ian Ayres recounts in his great book Supercrunchers, Ashenfelter was right and Parker wrong about the «86 vintage, and the way - out - on - a-limb predictions Ashenfelter made about the sublime quality of the «89 and «90 wines turned out to be spot on.

Any predictions it makes are probably wrong.

When I've tried to make predictions I've usually been wrong, often immediately.

The consensus model of climate has a long track record of successful predictions — that makes it very unlikely that it is fundamentally wrong.

«there are lots of old articles that get things wrong, are sensationalist or made predictions without a solid basis»

I'll make a simpler, and sooner falsifiable prediction, one that can be shown wrong by September or October of this year.

It's not that CC won't affect these things in the long term, rather when Climate Scientists make bold predictions on 50/50 propositions (or less) and are wrong, the public doesn't distinguish «wrong this year» from «wrong this century.»

Tell me if I'm wrong, but I believe that as of this moment there is essentially no written research in the field regarding the 2004 season (which has only been over for a few months), and the current TAR could not have made any prediction about 2004 since it was written several years before (and in fact is essentially neutral on the matter).

Accuracy would be less if the prediction were for the next hour, and if one would just have to make a forecast for the next day, merely by looking out of the window, a substantial number of people on any given day would be wrong.

And frankly, there are lots of old articles that get things wrong, are sensationalist or made predictions without a solid basis.

So, predictions made in June were proved to be wrong just three months later.

The difference is I also know I made some bad predictions, and I also know you get a lot of things wrong.

In a normal world, scientists who are repeatedly wrong, who create models that consistently fail, who make outlandish predictions that fail to materialize, etc., are scientists who lose credibility.

For instance, here are 18 examples of the spectacularly wrong predictions made around 1970 when the «green holy day» (aka Earth Day) started:

Both our friend Bob Tisdale, and also the Global Warming Brigade, need to make predictions so that their ideas can be falsified if wrong.

They can't be correct because every prediction the IPCC ever made, from their inception in 1990, was wrong.

If the theory makes a prediction, which it must to not simply be a hypothesis, and the prediction is wrong then the theory is discarded.

The greenhouse theory has already made two wrong predictions First, that adding carbon dioxide to air will reduce atmospheric IR transmittance (it didn't); and second, that it will cause twenty - first century warming (it didn't).