Does this sound familiar? A quantitative prediction is inconvenient for some heavily invested folks. Legitimate questions about methodology morph quickly into accusations that the researchers have put their thumb on the scale and that they are simply making their awkward predictions to feather their own nest. Others loudly proclaim that the methodology could never work and imply that anyone who knows anything knows that -it’s simply common sense! Audit sites spring up to re-process the raw data and produce predictions more to the liking of their audience. People who have actually championed the methods being used, and so really should know better, indulge in some obvious wish-casting (i.e. forecasting what you would like to be true, despite the absence of any evidence to support it).RealClimate: Trying to shoot the messenger
Contrarian attacks on climate science, right?
Actually no. This was assorted conservative punditry attacking Nate Silver (of the 538 blog) because his (Bayesian) projections for Tuesday’s election didn’t accord with what they wanted to hear. The leap from asking questions to cherry-picking, accusations of malfeasance and greed, audits, denial, and wish-casting was quite rapid, but it followed a very familiar pattern. People who value their personal attachments above objective knowledge seem to spend an inordinate amount of time finding reasons to dismiss the messenger when they don’t like the message.
Fortunately for Nate, all it took was one day, and reality came crashing down on his critics entire imaginary world.
UnSkewed Polls, those hapless auditors, were the funniest. Even one of our own members piled on with his revisionist construction of recent history into an alternate twisted reality. If you don't like the answer, the trick these days apparently is to find anyone you can with an answer you like, irrespective of how valid the answer's formation may be.