by Kevin “Coach” Collins
In 1954 a genius with a sharp eye for talent advised a young Elvis Presley, “You ain’t goin’ nowhere, Son. You ought to go back to drivin’ a truck.”
Everyday we are bombarded with news of shocked “experts” having to once again admit they were wrong. In most cases this hapless bunch of Charlie Browns isn’t any more expert than the man who dismissed Presley. So we don’t lose sight of their embarrassing claptrap, here are a few “expert” predictions we have been insulted with recently.
In spite of “expert” sentiment to the contrary, America’s manufacturing sector has slowed “more than expected” and in fact has fallen to September 2009 levels. The geniuses at the Institute of Supply Management (ISM) didn’t just miss this one their expectation was barely in the same area code. The ISM expected its growth index would fall 2.7, not the actual 6.9 points it tumbled.
The 38,000 new private sector jobs added in May provide another example of surprised “experts” having to stammer out an explanation of how they could be so wrong.
In May private sector companies in the U.S. added fewer workers than forecast by the “experts” at ADP Employer Services. Mercifully, the press release didn’t include the boilerplate line about “slowing the recovery.” Slowing the recovery? The “recovery” these “experts” are talking about can only be heard by dogs and liberals. The rest of us can’t hear or see the “recovery” the “experts” assure us it is already underway.
Reuters uses the word “economists” to describe the “experts” it quotes. This week Reuters quoted “economists” who once again incorrectly forecast a decline in the number of new unemployment claims. It also reported the Department of Labor overestimated the rate of GDP growth in the first quarter.
These are experts, eh?
The Fools at NOAA
Pointing to the fact that NOAA’s predictions of the number of named Atlantic hurricanes had been wrong three of the four years between 2006 and 2009, last year a National Center for Public Policy Research spokesman said, “We think our chimp can do better. He hasn’t been wrong so far. Of course, this is his very first hurricane season forecast.”
The chimp “predicted” six such hurricanes, and NOAA said we should expect nineteen. Nevertheless, NOAA made its prediction using its best bureaucratic slippery language, saying there was an 85 percent chance of more than 15 named Atlantic hurricanes. There were actually 19 such storms.
Based on the “closeness” of the chimp’s prediction and its lack of definition, if the chimp were a registered Democrat the media would quite comfortably declare him an expert.
To contact your Congressional Representative use this link: http://www.contactingthecongress.org/
To read more about these “expert” predictions use these links:
http://www.falstad.com/experts.html
http://www.cnbc.com/id/43236208
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/26/us-usa-economy-gdp-claims-view-idUSTRE74P3PU20110526
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/outlooks/hurricane2010/May/figure1.gif
http://maxmayfieldshurricaneblog.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/the-active-2010-atlantic-hurricane-season/
This article originally appeared on CoachIsRight.com and is reprinted with permission.
Please share this post with your friends and comment below. If you haven’t already, take a moment to sign up for our free newsletter above and friend us on Twitter and Facebook to get real time updates.
Follow @WestJournalism
Loading ...
I just stumbled across this blog, but I feel compelled to respond to your little NOAA section:
It’s unclear what your beef with the organization is, if you indeed have one. Are you, in fact, defending the NOAA and using this “chimp” anecdote to represent Democrats’ alleged embrace of poor forecasting models? Or are you deeply displeased with the NOAA’s inability to exactly predict the number of tropical storms on an annual basis? If the answer is the former, you should proofread your post. If the answer is the latter, then you’re just complaining for the sake of complaining: surely worrying over relatively unimportant statistics like “annual quantity” is an exercise in paranoid silliness when the NOAA is not only shockingly accurate in their individual forecasts of tropical storms and hurricanes, but also since the NOAA is singularly responsible for the safety and notification of those in harm’s way. Not to bring up FEMA or anything, but it’s scientific organizations like the NOAA and the National Weather Service that contribute most to successful storm preparation.
In any event, I’d advise you calm down, and consider the fact that there do exist “experts” that possess specialized knowledge regarding mathematics, science, and economics, knowledge of which you (or I, for that matter) will never be able to grasp or meaningfully apply. Further, I’d advise you to consider that politicians of every ilk lie and cheat, and that only a fool would consider one side of the aisle as the objectively chaste and honorable alternative to the “other” side of the aisle. Unconditional belief begets deception.
Also, almost every major media outlet is owner and operated by large, conservative, private corporations. The fact that certain members of the “soft-sciences” media insist on engaging in quantitative speculation is hardly a reason to discredit the importance and accuracy of objective, scientific analysis.
No one is right about everything; that fact does not mean that everyone is wrong about everything. It all depends on what you want to consider.