There is a lot wrong with the article. More than the fact that it isn't an analysis with explicit uncertainty is that there was an implicit assumption that the underlying model driving fertility/mortality will not change under the intense pressures these shifts will create. It is pure extrapolation for dramatic effect. However, the overall directions (the current derivatives) are a bit harder to argue with and are pointing us toward some dramatic changes. On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Thomas Anderson <tom@cs.washington.edu> wrote:
doesn't the fact that there are no error bars on their projections tell you they need a little more nate silver, and a little less omg?
ps. the underlying data they used has error bars: eg., the UN fertility rate for Angola in 2050 has a 95% confidence interval of being between 1.8 and 5. not a tight bound.
On Jul 23, 2013, at 9:58 AM, Gaetano Borriello wrote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/07/16/the-amazing-sur... _______________________________________________ change mailing list change@change.washington.edu http://changemm.cs.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/change