Models

Jerome J. Schmitt at American Thinker has a piece on two different mathematical models which are given very different levels of authority by the political left.

One is the model of the Earth's climate. I've already linked to a piece telling of how 22 different climate models were tested for their ability to predict what has already happened. None of them predicted climate changes we know happened.

The atmosphere is a very complex system, and it turns out to be very hard to predict the behavior of systems that are vastly simpler:

Closed systems are also much easier to model as compared to systems open to the atmosphere (that should tell us something already). Computer models are used to inform the engineering team as the design the shape, temperature ramp, flow rates, etc, etc, (i.e. the thermodynamics) of the new reactor.

Nonetheless, despite the fact that 1) the chemical reactions are highly studied, 2) there exists extensive experience with similar reactors, much of it recorded in the open literature, 3) the input gases and materials are of high and known purity, and 4) the process is controlled with incredible precision, the predictions of the models are often wrong, requiring that the reactor be adjusted empirically to produce the desired product with quality and reliability.

The fact that these artificial "climates" are closed systems far simpler than the global climate, have the advantage of the experimental method, and are subject to precise controls, and yet are frequently wrong, should lend some humility to those who make grand predictions about the future of the earth's atmosphere.

On the other hand:

Actuaries are mathematical professionals who build statistical models of human populations in order to plan for life-insurance, health-insurance and pension benefits. The accuracy of their models can have far reaching consequences. Errors might cost their private sector employers' millions and even billions of dollars. Fortunately, the actuarial profession's record in accurate prediction is quite good, particularly since their relatively simple statistical models are informed with reliable data collected from census figures as well as hospital and mortuary records. While predicting one individual's healthcare needs and time-of-death is impossible, when averaged across millions of people, such statistics can be quite reliable.

And I'll amplify on that point. Some friends of mine went on a cruise, and had a chance to talk with the food service people about the economics of menu planning. It turns out the person who plans the menus is able to estimate, to within a few percent, how many of each entree will be needed to meet demand. Because of what amounts to political correctness, he doesn't have access to the passengers' ethnicity data -- all he gets is age and sex. Yet that's enough data to predict how many diners will want rack of lamb, how many will want fish, how many will want chicken, and so on.

And this is another area where getting it wrong costs money.

Today, a consensus of actuaries agrees that the Social Security system is in need of major overhaul otherwise it will experience debilitating financial shortfalls in a few decades as more and more "baby-boomers" retire with full benefits. In the face of this consensus however, liberals demur and minimize the importance of this crisis, undercutting President Bush's attempts to draw attention the problem as his prelude to proposing reforms.

The difference is, Democrats have been using Social Security as a way to bribe their voters. People who deal with energy are big corporations, especially the hated Exxon-Mobil, and make great targets.