11 Apr 2018

Potpourri

Potpourri 32 Comments

==> David Gordon reviews the Independent Institute’s collection on Pope Francis. I wrote the Concluding essay. David included this zinger from me:

Murphy answers alarmism about “climate change,” another feature of the Pope’s encyclical. Drastic restrictions on production are defended as “insurance” against an environmental catastrophe. Murphy responds: “Yet if the proper justification for aggressive climate change policies is insurance for unlikely events ‘just in case,’ then it should be clear that the public has been misled all this time. Nobody sells a homeowner fire insurance by saying, ‘We can see the ravages of the fire on your property as we speak!’” (p.218)

==> Not sure if I already mentioned: My latest article in the Journal of Private Enterprise, on the removal of the 1970s price controls on crude oil. Some good stuff in here (for real); not just for wonks, but especially if you’re an economics professor, check it out. Friedman admitted he had misstepped, for example.

==> You heard it here first: I’m telling you people, I smell a rat with this dark matter stuff. They are inventing 95% of the mass/energy of the universe that is unobservable, in order to reconcile observations with their pre-existing framework. Nope.

==> Richard Ebeling on Mises the man, the myth, the legend:

32 Responses to “Potpourri”

  1. Capt. J Parker says:

    Let’s see… An Economist observes how Physicists are altering their models to deal with new, confounding information and the Economist concludes the Physicists don’t know what they’re doing. We admire all you do Dr. Murphy but, Oh the irony!

    • Bob Murphy says:

      An Economist observes how Physicists are altering their models to deal with new, confounding information…

      No, that’s not what they’re doing. That’s my point. Instead they are saying, “There must be 9x more matter/energy out there that we can’t observe, because otherwise our model would be totally wrong.”

      And are you saying I routinely give high-fives to economists for how they conduct their field?

      • Capt. J Parker says:

        Dr. Murphy said “No, that’s not what they’re doing. That’s my point. Instead they are saying, “There must be 9x more matter/energy out there that we can’t observe, because otherwise our model would be totally wrong.””

        For the most part I agree that the physicists are basically saying “There must be 9x more matter/energy out there that we can’t observe, because otherwise our model would be totally wrong.” But this is totally consistent with my claim that what is going on is physicists are altering their models to deal with new, confounding information. I think your point is very weak. I see the dark matter hypothesis as entirely analogous to the case of the Higgs Boson in the Standard Model of elementary particle physics. The Standard Model didn’t work without the existence of the Higgs Boson but, the Higgs Boson itself had not been directly observed at the time the Standard Model became generally accepted because of how well is explained experimental results and predicted other phenomena. It seems to me that by your rules the Standard Model should have been scrapped rather than invent the existence of the never observed Higgs Boson. That would have been a mistake now that there is mounting evidence that the Higgs Boson has been directly observed.
        “And are you saying I routinely give high-fives to economists for how they conduct their field?”
        No. I only thought might at least accede that there is some irony for the very reason that you don’t give high-fives. I recognize I put no effort into making the case for the physicists.

        • Bob Murphy says:

          Capt. Parker wrote: “It seems to me that by your rules the Standard Model should have been scrapped rather than invent the existence of the never observed Higgs Boson.”

          Capt. Parker, it sounds like you probably know a lot more about physics–certainly particle physics–than I do. I see that the Higgs Boson has a large mass compared to other elementary particles (?), but it doesn’t really make up atoms etc. so I am not sure how to relate it to my point about dark matter.

          Let me put it this way: If astronomers see galaxies rotating around a dark spot, I have no problem if they say, “Hey, there’s probably a really massive black hole right there.” But as I understand it, it’s more like: “Well at first the expansion of the universe was decelerating, but then it started accelerating, and oh by the way 95% of the universe is made up of stuff we can’t observe right now.”

        • Bob Murphy says:

          RPM wrote: “And are you saying I routinely give high-fives to economists for how they conduct their field?”

          Capt. Parker responded: “No. I only thought might at least accede that there is some irony for the very reason that you don’t give high-fives.”

          I still don’t get what you mean here. When Eugene Fama says “No there couldn’t have been a housing bubble, that doesn’t fit into my model of economic actors” then I make fun of him. When Krugman says “Good thing we had a stimulus package, the economy was worse than we realized” I make fun of him. So when physicists say “Wow there is 20x more mass/energy than we realized in the universe” then I make fun of them.

  2. Mark says:

    Interesting that you bring up dark matter. Even in the realm of Creation Scientists, it’s a disputed issue. At creation.com, they deny its existence. Here’s one of a zillion articles on the subject there: https://creation.com/why-dark-matter-everywhere

    However, over at answersingenesis.org,they posted an article a few days ago on the subject by Danny Faulkner, a PhD astronomer who believes in dark matter. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/cosmology/galaxy-little-or-no-dark-matter/ Here’s an article from him from about a year ago making the case for dark matter. https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/cosmology/case-for-dark-matter/

    It’s an interesting subject and worth following.All I know is “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.” Psalm 19:1

  3. Geirdriful says:

    I think liability insurance is a better analogy, since climate change can already be seen to be harming east Africans.
    https://www.oxfam.org/en/grow-ethiopia-food-crisis-ethiopia/how-climate-change-helping-fuel-massive-hunger-crisis-east-africa

    Now, here’s what I’m wondering. One traditionally pays out liability claims to those who are sufficiently strong, relative to oneself, to demand payment. We have armies. Our armies of much stronger than those of Somalia, Ethiopia, or Kenya. Why do we need liability insurance when we have strong armies?

    • Dan says:

      They simply assert that climate change is the cause without providing any evidence. They even mention that droughts are common in that region, briefly mentioning one in 2011. Seems like a better explanation for their problems is their countries’ economic policies.

      • Geirdriful says:

        They have further evidence here.
        https://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/mb-climate-crisis-east-africa-drought-270417-en.pdf

        Yes, they mention that droughts are common, but their assertion is that climate change is *aggravating* the problem (from their perspective… not really much of a problem from those of us safely in drought-free parts of the world.)

        If I had a broken arm, and someone proceeded to punch me repeatedly in the broken arm, this would aggravate my problems and inhibit healing. It is true that I could not say that all of the problems with my arm were due to the punching, but I would certainly rather not be punched when I have a broken arm.

        Of course, you can still say that the evidence is insufficient. What level of evidence is enough to be persuasive is, ultimately, a subjective matter.

        But I have to wonder what sort of economic policy could cause temperatures to rise and prevent the rain from falling. Sounds like climate change to me, which is rather international.

        • Dan says:

          They admit that they have no evidence to attribute the lack of rainfall to climate change in that article. How does that provide evidence for their side?

          “If I had a broken arm, and someone proceeded to punch me repeatedly in the broken arm, this would aggravate my problems and inhibit healing.”

          Sure, but if there was no evidence anyone was punching you in the arm, forgive me if I don’t find your arm punching theory convincing.

          • Geirdriful says:

            They have evidence. You may assert that this evidence is insufficiently convincing. There may, for example, be multiple ways of interpreting the evidence. But that is not the same thing as them having no evidence. For example, there’s some charts on page 3 of the pdf

            “These charts show a clear trend of rising temperatures in East Africa, and particularly high temperatures over recent years compared with a historic average (over the period 1940 to 1981).”

            The arm analogy was to point out that even if a person already has problems for unrelated reasons (for example, falling on their arm), it is still possible for someone or something else to come along and make it worse (for example, by punching the broken arm). The fact that east Africa already had problems does not preclude the possibility of climate change making those problems worse.

        • Dan says:

          And I’m not blaming their economic policies for a drought. I’m blaming their economic policies for their inability to withstand one.

          • Geirdriful says:

            I believe some people have suggested that Kenyans should invest more in water storage. This does not preclude the possibility that climate change may still be a contributing factor to their problems.

            As Aristophanes once wrote, “It is from their foes, not their friends, that cities learn the lesson of building high walls.”

            In the ages of bronze and iron, walls could significantly improve a city’s ability to withstand attack. However, if they had no foes, the walls would have been unnecessary.

            • Dan says:

              Granted, but in your first comment you said matter of factly that climate change was already harming them. Now you are saying it’s a possibility. Big difference.

              • Geirdriful says:

                It is standard practice for people to state their opinions without qualifying every sentence with “I believe”. They have enough evidence to persuade me. Whether they have enough evidence to persuade you, only you can say.

              • Geirdriful says:

                They have enough evidence to persuade me. Whether they have enough evidence to persuade you, only you can say. Regardless, it is standard practice for people to state their opinions without qualifying every sentence with “I believe.”

                They have data showing an increase in temperatures. They have data showing a decrease in rainfall. I call that climate change. Maybe you have another term for it.

                There may be more question as to the extent to which the temperatures and rainfall are related, or to what extent the climate change is man-made. I tend to believe that climate change is at least partially made made, and that in this case the high temperatures and the lack of rainfall are related.

                You can disagree of course. I am not claiming infallibility. But I don’t see any need to qualify my every opinion with “I believe”.

                You mentioned that the area already had droughts as if this disproved their claims that the climate change was making the droughts worse than they would be otherwise. It does not. It is possible to have droughts without climate change, and even worse droughts with climate change.

              • Geirdriful says:

                Essentially, from my perspective, climate change is already harming people in East Africa. From your perspective, maybe it is merely a possibility, and if not from your perspective, maybe someone else’s. Hence both are true, from different points of view.

              • Geirdriful says:

                Or, if another way of putting it would help, it seems you have mistaken my attempt to see things from your view (which isn’t easy, since you don’t seem to have much interest in explaining your view) for agreement.

                For example, suppose I mention that the Earth is more or less round. Then a Flat Earther comes along and says, “Ah, but there is no visible curvature to the horizon even from airplanes.” Then I reply, “This does not preclude the possibility that the Earth is round, and that the curvature is simply too slight for you to notice on your aeroplane ride.”

                This would not mean that I have suddenly decided that the Flat Earther made some really persuasive arguments, and that I may wish to consider giving up my belief that the Earth is mostly round. It would simply mean that I am trying to acknowledge that from his point of view, the Earth is flat and, if he is willing to concede the possibility of being wrong. then to him it is merely a possibility that the Earth might be round.

        • Stephen Dedalus says:

          “Of course, you can still say that the evidence is insufficient. What level of evidence is enough to be persuasive is, ultimately, a subjective matter.”

          Well, there goes science out the window!

          • Geirdriful says:

            Exactly. It is possible we are all living inside a computer simulation. I don’t know of any evidence to prove that we are, but, I do not know of any evidence to disprove it either. Science has failed to provide any definitive answers on the subject, as far as I am concerned.

            What I do know is that I can feel pain. And pleasure. So even if the universe is just a computer simulation, it is still helpful to me to learn to predict what will cause pain or pleasure.

  4. Harold says:

    The dark matter article is very interesting. They observed a signal from the early universe that was much stronger than expected. They spent over 2 years checking the result was not spurious, and concluded that it was very likely genuine. They then sought an explanation for it. On initial idea was a variety of dark matter, but this has since been all but rejected. There are other possible explanations – more radiation, cooler gas or still error in the measurement.

    The dark matter idea was rejected because to be true it would have to fit with everything else we have observed.
    “several groups of theoretical cosmologists started to compare the behavior of this unexpected type of dark matter to what we know about the universe — the decades’ worth of CMB observations, data from supernova explosions, the results of collisions at particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider, and astronomers’ understanding of how the Big Bang produced hydrogen, helium and lithium during the universe’s first few minutes. If millicharged dark matter was out there, did all these other observations make sense?

    They did not.”

    The dark matter was not just forced into the model to explain the result. It was floated as an idea then tested against myriad observations for consistency. In this case t was found wanting and rejected as an explanation.

    The explanation of dark matter as an explanation for the movement of galaxies has undergone the same process, except to a much greater degree as it has been tested for decades. So far it fits with everything we observe. Note that this is what we observe, not what we think the universe should look like.

    So far, dark matter is a valid candidate for the behaviour of galaxies because it does not contradict anything we observe. We still don’t know what it is, and there may be another explanation, but nobody has come with a better one that fits all the observation nearly as well.

    ” They are inventing 95% of the mass/energy of the universe that is unobservable, in order to reconcile observations with their pre-existing framework.”

    Not so. They are postulating dark matter as a way to explain observations, not to reconcile observations with a pre-existing framework. We see from the example above that where dark matter does not fit all these observations it is rejected.

    If someone could come up with another explanation that fitted all the observations they would be a huge success. Andre Maeder suggested scale invariance of space, but we then have to reject General Relativity. The MOND hypothesis postulates that gravity does not follow the inverse square law, but spikes at the edge of galaxies for some reason. To date the alternative theories have more problems than the dark matter one.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Harold, I have to be brief. I just want to explain that you just confirmed what I’ve been saying.

      First, you quoted me saying:

      “They are inventing 95% of the mass/energy of the universe that is unobservable, in order to reconcile observations with their pre-existing framework.”

      Then you replied: “Not so. They are postulating dark matter as a way to explain observations, not to reconcile observations with a pre-existing framework.”

      But you later went on to say: “If someone could come up with another explanation that fitted all the observations they would be a huge success. Andre Maeder suggested scale invariance of space, but we then have to reject General Relativity. The MOND hypothesis postulates that gravity does not follow the inverse square law, but spikes at the edge of galaxies for some reason. To date the alternative theories have more problems than the dark matter one.”

      You are confirming what I said.

      I’m not saying the physicists/cosmologists are being dishonest or stupid. I’m saying that when they end up postulating that maybe 95% of the mass/energy of the universe is unobservable, and we had to postulate that in order to reconcile surprising observations that came in from the 1950s onward, then I think it means the underlying framework they are using has a major problem. Of course I don’t have a better suggestion. This is standard stuff about how science progresses; we won’t get the paradigm shift until somebody has a better framework. I’m just going out on a limb and saying invoking dark matter/energy is a giant asterisk to make everything fit.

      • Harold says:

        Dark matter may well end up being the wrong answer. There are several experts who think so, hence they are looking for other explanations. However, there are a huge number of observations the hypothesis must be consistent with. Initially, perhaps it was a bit of a desperate way, but since then the evidence seems to be piling up and nothing yet found that shows it to be wrong.

        My words were chosen poorly. They imply that we do not accept scale invariance because we would then need to reject General Relativity. This is not the case, it is just that General Relativity is consistent with everything we observe and scale invariance is consistent only with observations of certain galaxies.

        I agree, this is standard stuff about how science progresses. I think the big paradigm shifts we are waiting for include reconciling QM with relativity, explanation of dark matter and dark energy.

        However, I still think think that the distinction between invoking dark matter to explain observations and invoking dark matter to reconcile observations with a pre-existing framework is an important one. While both could be considered true depending on what is meant by “framework”, I believe my phrasing conveys the real situation more precisely. The other carries suggestions of something improper.

        • Craw says:

          Only the pull of Dark Matter can explain how rapidly Harold’s goalposts move.

          • Harold says:

            Craw, can you explain where my goalposts have moved?

  5. Harold says:

    I don’t understand your insurance analogy. We do see the effects of fire all the time. We may not be observing it on the particular house but that is not the point at all. If we were, for example, selling insuring to the owner of a a city, we could point to some houses that had burned down as evidence that catastrophic loss from fire is a possibility. We would say to the owner of the city ” ‘We can see the ravages of the fire on your property as we speak!’”

    As I say, I don’t really get where this analogy is coming from.

    • Bob Murphy says:

      Harold wrote:

      I don’t understand your insurance analogy. We do see the effects of fire all the time. We may not be observing it on the particular house but that is not the point at all. If we were, for example, selling insuring to the owner of a a city, we could point to some houses that had burned down as evidence that catastrophic loss from fire is a possibility. We would say to the owner of the city ” ‘We can see the ravages of the fire on your property as we speak!’”

      This doesn’t really work Harold. If a person owned the entire city, then he would be self-insuring for one-off building fires that occur all the time. The fire insurance company would have to point to some *other* city that had been completely wiped out by an unusual inferno and say, “That could happen to you sometime over the next 50 years, you’d better take out insurance.”

      In reality, fire insurance companies don’t sell policies to an owner of a whole city, instead they sell them to individual building owners whose buildings are not currently on fire.

      For the climate change analogy to work, Al Gore would need to point to some other planet that had its Industrial Revolution at least a century before we did, and say, “See how they got crushed by runaway, Martian-pogenic climate change? That could happen here, we need to take out an insurance policy.”

      • Harold says:

        ““Yet if the proper justification for aggressive climate change policies is insurance for unlikely events ‘just in case,’ then it should be clear that the public has been misled all this time. Nobody sells a homeowner fire insurance by saying, ‘We can see the ravages of the fire on your property as we speak!’”

        I don’t want to get onto whether this is the justification or not, I just don’t understand your use of a household as an example to illustrate that it is not valid. Are you saying that because householders generally insure properties that are not on fire then it follows that insurance for a property that was on fire would be inappropriate?

        Say my house had a very slow fire burning in a place that was not accessible to me to put out, but was likely to spread at any moment. If someone offered me insurance I would jump at the chance. The salesperson could well say that he could see the ravages of fire on my property as we speak.

        The fact that we do not see in practice such fires does not alter the principle. Evidence of such a fire would make insurance much more attractive.

        This seems obvious to me, so I wonder if I missed the point of your analogy.

      • Geirdriful says:

        Why would the city need to be “completely wiped out” to make the argument valid, at least to some people? Would no one care if the city were only 10% wiped out? 20%? 50%? 90%? I would think that at least 10%, 20%, 50%, and 90% of people in the city, respectively, would care.

        Rome burned in 64 AD. However, the city was not “completely wiped out”. Of Rome’s fourteen districts, three were leveled, seven more were reduced to ruins and four were left intact. Do the four intact districts mean that no one could be persuaded, from their points of view, that the fire was the sort of thing that ought to be avoided in the future?

        http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/rome.htm

        Why a completely different planet? Why not simply another continent, like Africa, a continent that already has a relatively hot climate in many areas to begin with and is thus more vulnerable to climate change (from the perspective of people who don’t want things to get “too hot”, from their subjective views) to begin with?

  6. Tel says:

    I used to be very skeptical about Global Warming, until it happened to the house next door and then I thought, “Woah! That could have happened to me, I better get some insurance on this.”

    You know, just in case, precautionary and all that.

    • Geirdriful says:

      What if climate change were a weapon you could point at your enemies? Would you consider that useful?

      • Tel says:

        Yeah, Trump could point that Global Warming at the Russians. That would teach them a lesson!

        The Russians would be saying, “No no, don’t warm up Siberia by two degrees, anything but that. Please stop, our vodka is starting to melt”.

        Ha! Buy Facebook ads now will you?

Leave a Reply to Dan

Cancel Reply