> What you're asking for, "how wrong do you think the model is," is a reasonable thing to ask for, but different and much harder to quantify.
This definitely seems to me to be what the original author is motivating: forecasts should have "error bars" in the sense that they should depict how wrong they might be. In other words, when the author writes:
> Point forecasts will always be wrong – a more reasonable approach is to provide the prediction intervals for the forecasts. Showing error intervals around the forecasts will show how Richard interpreting minor trends is likely to be misleading.
The second sentence does not sound like a good solution to the problem in the first sentence.
> What you're asking for, "how wrong do you think the model is," is a reasonable thing to ask for, but different and much harder to quantify.
This definitely seems to me to be what the original author is motivating: forecasts should have "error bars" in the sense that they should depict how wrong they might be. In other words, when the author writes:
> Point forecasts will always be wrong – a more reasonable approach is to provide the prediction intervals for the forecasts. Showing error intervals around the forecasts will show how Richard interpreting minor trends is likely to be misleading.
The second sentence does not sound like a good solution to the problem in the first sentence.