This is the definition of a red herring in the actual discussion that was going on. We were talking about economic trends of the past. This study is about overprecision in economists predictions, a.k.a. the future (which, incidentally, didn't show that the predictions were wildly wrong, just that they were slightly over-precise in their predictions when a slightly wider range would have been better). Did you also know that a couple of the sources used in the study were from weather forecasting studies?
Also, a point of intellectual consistency, why are you trusting the expert economists who authored the study if you don't trust economists? Do you trust economists or do you not? Or do you only trust economists when their information matches what you want it to say? We are all guilty of this on occasion, of course.
Just so we are clear here: I am not saying that economists are perfect, or even great: I'm saying that not only do you not know what you're talking about in this instance; you are intellectually inconsistent in this instance; and you are an absolutely flawless example of the Dunning-Kruger effect on this subject (which we all are on at least some things).
But none of this means I can't have a discussion with you or that I dislike you in any way; on the contrary, as much as I disagree with your points of view and methods of argumentation, I greatly prefer an argument with a person that at least attempts to argue with words rather than memes far more often than not.
