OddsShark score
prediction models pick a 3.7 - 2.1 result in favor of the Predators today.
Not exact matches
Handicapping
models based on recent betting stats and
prediction formulas
pick a 5.2 - 3.8 win for the Red Sox.
Handicapping
models based on recent betting stats and
prediction formulas
pick a 4.8 - 0.8 win for the Penguins.
All the cherry
picked quote you have selected says is that
prediction of changes for the phenomenon in question we need the best
models.
If we really want to know who's cherry
picking data — land - based measurements vs geological time scales vs
models, the answer is to create a betting market for climate
prediction and get the people who think they know put their money where their mouths are.
Such revisions make for tremendous arguments and competing claims about whether cherry
picking of data has been used to support the
predictions of the AGW theoretical
models.
Pekka you write «As every
prediction is always based on a
model of some kind, we may well judge it prudent to
pick one or several of the less than perfectly validated
models to make one or more
predictions»
It is perfectly valid to point out that certain of these
predictions are a) typos or made up numbers (take your
pick), like the Himalayan glacier vanishing act, b) subject to wide disagreement between
models, c) not supported by the data, like Hansen's 1988
model forecast, d) other.
Such revisions make for tremendous arguments and competing claims about whether cherry
picking of data has been used to support the
predictions of the AGW theoretical
models (15,16).
That allows cherry
picking individual
model runs for the lowest temperature
predictions.
If there are too many
models for there to be some general consensus of what the
prediction should be, then we do in fact revert to the problem of cherry
picking.
Since there are so many
models, it is pretty easy to observe the climate in action, then
pick one of the many
models that RETROACTIVELlY «predicted» what actually occurred closely enough that it could be argued that the observed climate was «not incompatible» (favorite phrase of Climatologists) with the
model predictions.
Picking up on comment 36 (and at least I appreciate how like the BBC RealClimate.org does at least take criticism seriously and respectfully and I appreciate that) you write that the
models in question only give
predictions for 2200, however this is not what the London Independent reported; it stated: «Professor Mike Schlesinger, of the University of Illinois, reported that the shutdown of the Gulf Stream, once seen as a «low probability event», was now 45 per cent likely this century, and 70 per cent probable by 2200 ″