-

FAQ

More.

Via Prof Panos.

UPDATE: Prof Panos has more.

In part #2, he speaks about the books he is writing:

In a new study, Daniel Reeves, Duncan Watts, Dave Pennock and I compare the performance of prediction markets to conventional means of forecasting, namely polls and statistical models. Examining thousands of sporting and movie events, we find that the relative advantage of prediction markets is remarkably small. [...]

Given that sports and entertainment markets are among the most mature and successful, our results challenge the view that prediction markets are substantively superior to alternative forecasting mechanisms. Nevertheless, it is certainly possible that there are forecasting applications where either the relative advantage of markets is larger, or that such differences in performance are consequential. Thus, while prediction markets may yet prove to be useful, it would seem the enthusiasm for their predictive prowess has outpaced the evidence.

Prediction Without Markets — by Sharad Goel, Daniel M. Reeves, Duncan J. Watts, David M. Pennock

http://www.cam.cornell.edu/~sharad/papers/pred-wo-markets.pdf

-

Robin Hanson’s comment:

Whoever said that every prediction market would always be more accurate than any other mechanism? [*] I’d say they are more-accurate more often than they are less-accurate, compared to mechanisms with similar resources. And your plots at the bottom look like they are testing calibration, not accuracy.

Read Daniel Reeves’s answer to Robin Hanson.

[*] Google, doc.

Criticism of Bueno de Mesquita’s Theories

Addendum: Philip Tetlock’s foxes and hedgehogs

A commenter on their blog:

I am a paleoclimatologist, and can only say FINALLY. Someone with economics background understands the difference between reality and a model for reality.

Al Gore, Jim Hansen, Paul Krugman, and many on this page want us to base public policy on models claim to predict the future of the climate, even though they do not model cloud formation correctly, do not incorporate the Sun, and do not model the biosphere feedback at all (just for starters). This is not (necessarily) a criticism of modelers. Modeling a planet is difficult; many things will be left out of a model. It is likewise not surprising that these models have failed to predict anything (that is, say in advance what is going to happen). Not hurricanes, not El Nino, not the cooling of the past few years. Nor do they “retrodict” things from the past that the modelers did not know about and therefore did not parameterize into their models. Not the Pliocene warming. Not the Ice Age terminations, nothing.

Those of us who work with models are not surprised by this at all. We are still crawling in climate modeling, and one must crawl before one walks. The only surprise is that politicians should have become so fixated so strongly on science that is just not there.

Jim Hansen had an interesting hypothesis; that feedback cycles that amplify CO2-caused increases in temperature might overwhelm feedback cycles that damp this perturbation. Maybe. Any good scientist would consider it as a hypothesis. But it is clear now that it is a poorly supported hypothesis, and is certainly no grounds for determining public policy.

The problem arises because Al Gore declared Hansen’s hypothesis “a winner”, made a movie and won a Nobel Peace Prize. And so non-scientists (including many people writing on this page) think they have “settled science” in their pocket. This is not the first time that science has been corrupted by politicians selecting a winner. Stalin re. Lysenko; and back to the Pharaohs.

On this page, we have people who display none of the critical thinking required for science who nonetheless think that their opinion is “scientific”. Gecko thinks that the European heat wave means something (no, weather is not climate). Tom Olson is certain that your chapter is “flawed” (It probably is, but does Tom have a clue why?). Nell is certain that “virtually all climate scientists and … governments understand that global warming is … happening faster than predicted.” No we do not, and no it is not. Bart Verheaggan is convinced that “CO2 is the major culprit in the warming.” The preponderance of the evidence opposes that.

Crf also thinks that science is based on “virtual consensus” and asks scientists to defer judgment to a government panel, the IPCC. Science begins, as Feynman points out, “assuming the ignorance of experts.” Also, scientists have agendas, like every other human being. The agenda of the governmental IPCC is known; it is different from the agendas of Pearson (racial Darwinism of the 1930’s), Stalin (Lysenko) and other examples from our politico-scientific past back to the Pharaohs, but the IPCC is just as obstructive of the scientific process as any of these historical examples. Which is why researchers are couching their observations inconsistent with the anthropogenic CO2 hypothesis in cover language; they fear political reprisals from the Gores, Krugmans, and Obamas of the world.

Decades of bad science education, and here we are. What a sorry state.

— Steven too

For the criticism of Super Freakonomics, go to Climate Progress, and search for Super Freakonomics. Tons of posts against Steve Levitt’s book.

UPDATE: Steve Dubner + Andrew Gelman + Brad DeLong

UPDATE:

Real Climate:

There is one further contradiction in the idea that geo-engineering is a fix. In order to proceed with such an intervention one would clearly need to rely absolutely on climate model simulations and have enormous confidence that they were correct (otherwise the danger of over-compensation is very real even if you decided to start off small). As with early attempts to steer hurricanes, the moment the planet did something unexpected, it is very likely the whole thing would be called off. It is precisely because climate modellers understand that climate models do not provide precise predictions that they have argued for a reduction in the forces driving climate change. The existence of a near-perfect climate model is therefore a sine qua non for responsible geo-engineering, but should such a model exist, it would likely alleviate the need for geo-engineering in the first place since we would know exactly what to prepare for and how to prevent it.

Next: Steve Levitt clearly has virtually no understanding of earth science.

Next: Steve Levitt is attacked for not sticking to the scientific approach.

Next: Ken Caldeira about how his work was misrepresented in SuperFreakonomics —as well as the prospects (and pitfalls) of plans to engineer the planet’s climate system

UPDATE: Steve Dubner apologizes.

UPDATE: Ken Caldeira on Levitt and Dubner and Geoengineering

UPDATE: The SuperFreakonomics Global-Warming Fact Quiz

UPDATE: Climate Progress + AP

UPDATE: Harvard Business Review