And he leaves the safety of his own blog to do so. As goofy as it might sound for me to say that, I am serious. It makes a difference that he posted it at Mises as opposed to just at ThinkMarkets or TheAustrianEconomists.
Here it is:
I am not talking about peace in the world of foreign affairs, Afghanistan, Iraq or wherever else people are senselessly killing each other. That goes without saying.
I am talking about the war of words among people who subscribe to various strains of Austrian economics. I am not going to be very specific here because I do not want to stoke the fires. If you don’t know what I am talking about, that is great. Please do something more productive than reading this.
If you do know what I am talking about, then you know that much energy has been expended recently and over the past few years by Austrians who attack each other for various flaws in their Austrianism.
I am writing here a plea for peace. There is an opportunity cost to every decision. The main opportunity foregone in this case is improving our theories, our evidence and criticizing more effectively Keynesians and other interventionists.
The various participants in the intra-Austrian squabbles are not likely to convince each other. These arguments have gone on too long without measurable progress.
I assume most of the argument is being engaged in for the “benefit” of the young and impressionable. But this is a delusion.
The best way to convince the uncommitted is by the positive strength of one’s argument using both theory and evidence. Here the spillover effect is to make intellectual progress. If, on the other hand, we seek to convince people by “stealing” from other camps of Austrians, the spillovers are negative for all of us. It becomes a race to the bottom or a kind of “mutually assured destruction.”
We do not have to agree on everything. For example, Joe Salerno and I do not agree on all aspects of Austrian economics. Yet Joe and I have seen each other weekly for nearly twenty years at the NYU Colloquium. We never engage in ad hominem attacks. We treat each other with decency and respect.
I do not expect to be buddies with all with whom I disagree strongly on issues. I don’t expect to be spending time with anyone who labels him or herself an “Austrian.” But I want much more to convince the rest of the world to appreciate the insights of F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises than I want to make sure my fellow Austrians agree with The Economics of Time and Ignorance.
In the meanwhile the statists and Keynesians laugh. They make fools of us because we first make fools of ourselves.
At lunch today one of my IER coworkers alluded to the fiasco when the head of the Black Chamber of Commerce (Harry Alford) stood up to Barbara Boxer. I didn’t know what he was talking about and he gleefully promised to send me the YouTube. The BCC had sponsored a study showing that the Waxman-Markey climate bill would be bad for small businesses, and so naturally Boxer wanted to discredit his testimony.
Man it is brutal. I had to stop it at 2:53. If you listen carefully, Boxer is wrong on everything from the moment this video begins, starting with her saying (paraphrase), “…he went a minute 30 over so I’m going to add that to my time,” and someone corrects her and says it was a minute 13.
This has nothing to do with economics or libertarianism. I just wanted something else at the top of my blog.
The video below is Tom Palmer’s book presentation, with comments from Tyler Cowen (starting around 26:00). I haven’t actually watched the video yet, but Robert Wenzel assures us it will be fun. The only thing more important than Climategate is a libertarian economist bashing Lew Rockwell!!
No, I’m not angling for Google hits. This EPJ post really does involve all of the above. What’s the connection with Eazy-E? Simple. When I read Wenzel’s post I thought of a song that I discarded when I realized I didn’t want my young son ever stumbling on my CDs from college.
I am starting to run out of steam on this issue, but really, I am only posting stuff that increases my shock at just how much these guys were doing to hide their data and techniques. If you have 15 minutes and the interest, I strongly recommend this now-famous blog post by the amateur guy who probably made the first Freedom of Information request to CRU. He shows that Jones et al. were planning their strategy (to avoid divulging) before they got a single FOI request. He then goes through the emails chronologically, outlining the progression of their various attempts to do damage control.
What’s really neat is that the guy intersperses the internal CRU emails with the official rejection letters he was getting regarding his requests for their station data. So you can see that they were truly just inventing BS excuses to refuse his request. At one point, one of the rejection letters contradicts the claim of the first rejection letter. They actually say at one point that they don’t have a list of all the temperature stations they currently use to construct their official temperature series. (!!)
LONDON — Britain’s University of East Anglia says the director of its prestigious Climatic Research Unit is stepping down pending an investigation into allegations that he overstated the case for man-made climate change.
The university says Phil Jones will relinquish his position until the completion of an independent review into allegations that he worked to alter the way in which global temperature data was presented.
The allegations were made after more than a decade of correspondence between leading British and U.S. scientists were posted to the Web following the security breach last month.
The e-mails were seized upon by some skeptics of man-made climate change as proof that scientists are manipulating the data about its extent.
* Gold broke $1,200.
* Larry Kudlow’s open letter to Tiger Woods. (Yes, he goes there.)
* Wesbury and Stein on anti-Obama-stimulus hypocrites.
* A fantastic Richard Lindzen op ed. Sometimes I think the climate change skeptics I respect the most don’t make their strongest points in a pop forum. But this one is out of the park. My favorite part, which needs some explanation:
The IPCC’s Scientific Assessments generally consist of about 1,000 pages of text. The Summary for Policymakers is 20 pages….However, it has been my experience that even the summary is hardly ever looked at. Rather, the whole report tends to be characterized by a single iconic claim.
The main statement publicized after the last IPCC Scientific Assessment two years ago was that it was likely that most of the warming since 1957 (a point of anomalous cold) was due to man. This claim was based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn’t reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.
Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.
To understand Lindzen’s powerful argument, you need to know exactly what it means when leading climate scientists say that there is strong evidence of “anthropogenic [manmade] global warming.” Let me reproduce my earlier summary of their evidence:
Richard Lindzen…thinks that the cutting-edge models do not correctly model certain processes in the atmosphere at the “micro” level. Orthodox climatologists concede the point, but then challenge Lindzen to tweak their models in order to come up with a better simulated fit with historical observations (on temperatures, rainfall, etc.). Thus far Lindzen has been unable to do this, because the fastest computers would not be able to run a simulation of the entire world, at a scale small enough to capture the effects Lindzen points to, and obey all the laws of physics. What has happened (it seems to me) is that even the latest generation of climate models necessarily make some heroic simplifying assumptions, in order to render the model tractable. Lindzen isn’t accusing the modelers of being lazy. Even so, he maintains that their models are still crude and give very misleading results. The connection between the work of Paul Samuelson and, say, Israel Kirzner should be obvious.
What is particularly worrisome to me is that the case for anthropogenic global warming runs basically like this (and see the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report [IPCC AR4] section here [pdf] in their own words, especially Frequently Asked Question 9.2 on page 702): When the modelers simulate the 20th century, they achieve a closer fit to the historical trends if they assume large, positive feedback effects from human greenhouse gas emissions. If the modelers adjust the dials (so to speak) and turn down the possible influence of human emissions, then, so long as we insist the models obey the laws of physics, the fit between the simulated temperatures and observed temperatures gets worse.
OK now with that background, you can understand the power of Lindzen’s WSJ argument. Global temperatures have undeniably risen quickly in the 20th century. Skeptics say that we can’t be sure human activities are driving this trend, because there is so much about natural variability that the computer models don’t take into account. But the IPCC standard bearers come back and say these models are good enough for the purpose, and from what we know of internal, natural variability, we can’t get the models to reproduce the warming of the 20th century. Only if we assume that human impacts on greenhouse gases (through emissions and cutting down forests etc.) have a large effect, can the latest computer models do a good job simulating the observed climate changes.
OK, so now Lindzen is bringing up a different point: It is well known that since 1998, global temperatures either have slightly fallen or have been flat (depending on whom you quote), even though greenhouse gas emissions grew faster than the models predicted they would. The models that the IPCC uses predicted that global temperatures would have risen from 1998 onward, of course subject to natural variability.
So what Lindzen is here claiming, is that the IPCC apologists are undercutting themselves. In order to explain away the lack of (modeled) warming in the last decade, they need to rely on a large variance in natural climate factors. But then this weakens their claim that natural variability alone is insufficient to explain the warming of the 20th century.
Before Climategate, I would have been much less likely to pay credence to Lindzen on this particular claim. I would have believed a Gavin Schmidt if he said, “We are correctly accounting for both ends of the issue, and we’re in the sweet spot middle. Our models have just enough natural variability to explain the recent flat temperatures, but not enough natural variability to explain the overall warming trend in the 20th century.”
Yet after seeing Michael Mann wonder aloud if he and his colleagues have actually checked that this explanation about post-1998 temperatures is consistent with their models, I am much more inclined to believe Lindzen’s take.