The current ‘civil war between Auburn & Fairfax’ ( Mark Sunwall’s apt description), was sparked off by Peter Boettke’s judgment that “[Don Lavoie] understood Mises better than all but two other Austrian economists (Israel Kirzner and Richard Ebeling).” Naturally this proved intolerable to some ‘Auburnites’.
Let me now suggest a via media: let us begin with the intellectual system of Mises himself. In the assessment of someone who was “probably the oldest of [Mises'] pupils”: Mises’ “knowledge of [economics] surpassed that of most occupants of professorial chairs…” But Mises’ thinking was too far-reaching to stop at departmental boundaries: “[Mises] was never a real specialist” in that narrow sense. His thought was so far-ranging that “in the realm of the social sciences….he must be compared to thinkers like Voltaire or Montesquieu, Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill.” In short, Mises was a multi-faceted thinker, whose intellectual system far surpassed the limited bounds of specific departmental (& other) interests.

It seems appropriate, therefore, that people are able to specialise in only aspects or areas of Mises’ global thought. I would suggest, therefore, that Lavoie, Kirzner, Ebeling, & even Rothbard, each took further & developed or worked on, a specific, distinct aspect of Mises’ ideas. (Note that even Rothbard was compelled to separate the gold from the dross in Mises’ Human Action, hence Rothbard’s Man, Economy & State.) I believe some people would be prepared to allow even Hayek a small space on this list (perhaps at the bottom.)
——————————-
The quotes are from Peter Klein, ed, The Fortunes of Liberalism, The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek Volume IV (London: Routledge 1992) pp. 129, 153.

For information: [I have posted this elsewhere ]
—————————————-
Apropos of climate studies: Here is Dr Roger Pielke Sr on a recent paper in the Journal of Climate. The paper used “high resolution weather prediction models”. For “the eastern United States”, these regional models “predicted” very much higher temperatures “for five future summers” than did the global model from which the regional models were derived.

Dr Pielke listed some “remarkably serious shortcomings of the model study”. His final para reads:

“Equally disturbing (or it should be to anyone who values scientific credibility) is that a peer reviewed journal elected to publish this paper in this form in which untested predictions for decades into the future were presented, yet the global and regional model could not even skillfully simulate recent climate[emphasis added]. The publication of such clearly scientifically flawed research conclusions raises questions on whether the journal (in this case the American Meteorological Society Journal of Climate) is engaging in advocacy rather than being a balanced arbitrator of peer reviewed papers. Publishing predictions which are not tested, is not science.”

——————————————

I highlight two points: 1. Senior scientists — not Dr Pielke alone — have serious reservations about using global climate models 2. Some climate studies at least have to be taken with a pinch of salt. But only knowledgeable scientists can detect these. All that lay inquirers can do is remain aware that there do exist well-based problems in climate studies.

Very broadly speaking, the UN’s International Panel on Climate Change holds the following position:

1. Use of fossil fuels adds ominously to the CO2 in the atmosphere, as well as to other ‘greenhouse gases’.
2. These anthropogenic additions ‘force’ temperatures further up — to deleterious levels.
3. There follow various consequences to (eg) marine life, wildlife, daily weather, agriculture, health, etc., etc.

(One example, from ‘Climate Change 2007,Impacts, Adaptation, Vulnerability’:
“Many millions more people are projected to be flooded every year due to sea-level rise by the 2080s.Those densely-populated and low-lying areas where adaptive capacity is relatively low, and which already face other challenges such as tropical storms or local coastal subsidence, are especially at risk.The numbers affected will be largest in the mega-deltas of Asia and Africa while small islands are especially vulnerable.”)

Politicians & their advisors then draw the obvious conclusions: Reduce the use of fossil fuels now.
———————–
To reach their position, the IPCC rely on work using extremely complicated global climate models, that need supercomputers to run them.

Furthermore, to arrive at the IPCC result:- (A) Besides meteorology — itself a multidisciplinary study, a variety of related disciplines have to be drawn upon. E.g.:- atmospheric physics; palaeoclimate studies — from/through geology; the study of ice-cores (trapped CO2); & of tree rings (their widths are held to indicate annual temperatures, inter alia); studies of ‘natural’ sources of CO2 in the atmosphere — this last involves (inter alia) oceanography: CO2 is both absorbed & released by, deep/surface ocean currents; etc., etc. Solar radiation varies over time, so its effect must also be studied: what impact it might (or might not) have on climate & hence temperatures (or on temperatures directly), in the medium- to long-term. — And all this is only a lay inquirer’s list; a knowledgeable scientist would come up with a more accurate & far longer list.

(B) The conclusions of all these disciplines/studies have all to point towards (1) & (2) of the IPCC position above. E.g., oceanographic studies must (on balance) at least be consistent with the proposition that human activities are far more significant in raising the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere; and so on.

The IPCC go through a fairly complicated process of commissioning surveys of findings, that are then vetted by ‘IPCC reviewers’, written up by ‘Lead Authors’ & others, re-written, etc., etc. For public consumption, they cut the Gordian knot by referring to the number of scientists involved: ‘3000′ or whatever. It is only after some inquiry that the layperson finds out the complexities above.
—————————————
The real issues are (1) & (2) above:- Not just a ‘rise in CO2′ or ‘global warming’ tout court, but an ominous rise in CO2 (& other ‘greenhouse gases’), & a deleterious rise in temperature throughout the globe. This is where the differences lie between those scientists who subscribe to the IPCC ‘consensus’, & those scientists who are outside this ‘consensus’. Some of the issues involved: distinguishing ‘natural’ from ‘anthropogenic’ changes in CO2; the extent/causes of ‘natural’ changes; the processes that lead from anthropogenic/other increases in CO2 (& other ‘greenhouse gases’) to a deleterious rise in temperatures; the effects of other human activities (eg, irrigation, expansion/decrease of area under crops, grass, forest); etc., etc.

In sum: ‘Rising CO2′ or ‘global warming’ do not summarise the IPCC position. It is this last which underlies the politics.

Contrary to what one often hears, opponents of the ‘scientific consensus’ promoted by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are not self-published kooks & cranks. In view of the heat that this statement seems to generate, it is necessary to spell out & clarify what is involved (for careful readers): There are many established scientists who seriously question its procedures & arguments. See, for example, the following:

1. Dr John Everett, now a consulting oceanographer; also involved with the IPCC as reviewer, etc. This contains much useful info. Dr Everett shares the IPCC notion that carbon emissions should be reduced, but he does not agree that humans are the major cause of undesirable climate change. Good review of the main issues, including the IPCC & its procedures, esp the famous ‘scientific consensus’. Provides good background/context for lay inquirers.

2. Dr Roger Pielke, Sr. has an excellent blog which lists, summarises, comments on scientific papers (from proper journals) that both support/question the IPCC consensus. Really valuable: a continuing annotated bibliography.

Dr Pielke heads his own research group at the ‘Co-operative Institute for Research in Environmental Science‘, Univ of Colorado at Boulder & NOAA (Nat’l Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.) He is listed there (at the top) as ‘Senior Research Scientist’. Quote: “As a world leader in Environmental Sciences CIRES is committed to identifying and pursuing innovative research in Earth System Science and to fostering public awareness of these processes to ensure a sustainable future environment. CIRES is dedicated to fundamental and interdisciplinary research targeted at all aspects of Earth System Science and is communicating these findings to the global scientific community, to decision-makers, and to the public.”

Dr Pielke is co-author (with W R Cotton) of ‘Human Impacts on Weather & Climate’ CUP 2007, & a large number of proper scientific papers.

In a summary of his views he says (inter alia): “Global warming is not equivalent to climate change. Significant, societally important climate change, due to both natural- and human- climate forcings, can occur without any global warming or cooling” [emphasis added]. And:

“In terms of climate change and variability on the regional and local scale, the IPCC Reports, the CCSP Report on surface and tropospheric temperature trends, and the U.S. National Assessment have overstated the role of the radiative effect of the anthropogenic increase of CO2 relative to the role of the diversity of other human climate climate forcing on global warming, and more generally, on climate variability and change” [emphasis added].

Dr Pielke also says “models [cannot] accurately forecast the spread of possibilities of future climate.” In short, he is outside the IPCC consensus.

(His son, Prof Roger Pielke Jr is a climate researcher/political scientist & heads the policy research unit in CIRES.)

3. For the names of scientists who question the IPCC consensus, see: ‘Open Kyoto to debate: Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming’, Financial Post (Toronto) 6 April 2006: An open letter to the then Canadian PM. Scientists from Canada, Australia, Britain, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, South Africa, Sweden, the US. The overwhelming majority are involved in disciplines necessary to climate studies: Most are from meteorology; others are from geology [Earth's climate has a long history], palaeoclimate studies, oceanography, etc.

A quote:’ “Climate change is real” is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural “noise.” ‘

4. An Australian group who (inter alia) publicise ‘sceptical’ papers/scientists. That is: one source for finding such papers.

5. A rather pugnacious blog, by one of the co-authors of a famous paper which demonstrated some serious problems with the way in which climate data were handled (the infamous/famous ‘hockey stick’)*: Inter alia, good technical discussions of the data, how they’re handled, etc. Also attempts to get the original temperature data from the author of the most-cited paper (Dr Philip Jones.) Read about the obfuscations, etc. The attempt continues; FOI had to be used. Similarly, the author of studies of ice-cores (which purport to show global warming accelerated after the mid-18th century) has not made his original data available, such that others can check it (see the points made in discussions.) Also discussions of ‘tree-rings’. Etc.

[*This paper was published in 'Energy & Environment' (below) in 2003. It gave rise to further papers, there & eg in Geophysical Research Letters. Two scientific committes were then convened by members of the US Congress; both reported in 2006. One was favourable, the other, not.]

6. ‘Energy & Environment‘ is a professional journal which publishes (inter alia) professional papers that question various aspects of the IPCC consensus: “Energy and Environment is an interdisciplinary journal aimed at natural scientists, technologists and the international social science and policy communities covering the direct and indirect environmental impacts of energy acquisition, transport, production and use. A particular objective is to cover the social, economic and political dimensions of such issues at local, national and international level.”

See especially the Editor’s comments; see also the Editorial Board.

7. The Vatican recently held a conference on climate & development, at which Prof Antonio Zichichi, head of the World Federation of Scientists, had some very pertinent comments on the IPCC approach, which he opposed. (His points are taken from a 60-page paper prepared for the conference. They are worth considering on their own merits.)

[NB: In view of some of the words used in some comments (below) I have felt it necessary to expand & especially try to clarify, what I posted originally.]

A correspondent on the LRC blog refers to the

“….ominous growth in dollar denominated debt instruments held by foreign central banks and foreign investors ….the impact….when foreigners finally decide to shift their massive dollar holdings from…monetary debt instruments to goods of a non-monetary nature. When this process begins…[it] would provide…an additional education in economic reality.”

This belief that vast quantities of US dollars are held by foreigners, & that this will duly lead to disaster, is so widely held in the US, that actual figures are never cited. It is therefore worth having a look at the numbers themselves, in the US balance-of-payments. The US capital account has been in net deficit since 1983. That is, foreigners have been sending more capital into the US than Americans have been sending out. US govt debt sold to foreign central banks & private buyers, & investments in the US by foreigners, are all included in this part of the balance-of-payments. For the 22 years 1983-2004 inclusive, we find the following:- As a proportion of all foreign capital coming into the US:

1. Private portfolio investment (i.e., purchase of stocks & shares by foreigners)….31.4%
2. Private FDI [Foreign Direct Investment], i.e., purchase/construction of factories, purchase of machinery etc for such factories…..18.0%
3. Other private investment (loans to companies, private purchase of shares, etc.)….10.2%
4. Private bank deposits & holdings…..14.6%
4. Foreign official holdings of Federal US govt debt….13.8%
5. Private holdings of Federal US govt debt….8.7%

In short: For the years 1983 – 2004:- (a) private foreign investors overwhelmingly invested directly in factories, machinery, etc.; in other business investments; & in American stocks & shares. These add up to some 60% of total capital inflows for those 22 years. In other words, foreigners already own large quantities of ‘goods of a non-monetary nature’. Indeed, it was precisely to buy such goods that they invested their savings in the US.

(b) Another 14.6% of private foreign investment consists of holdings of bank deposits, etc. — mostly held for financial purposes, or as financial investments. That is: Only the smaller part of foreigners’ holdings are financial, & even these are held for investment or business purposes.

(c) Sales of Federal govt debt to private holders came to less than 9% of the total. And these too are held as investments; there are large movements in & out.

(d ) Sales of Federal govt debt to central banks & other official bodies came to less than 14% of the whole. These sales also fluctuated considerably over these 22 years. Central banks hold US$ as part of their foreign exchange reserves. These banks may well exchange some of these holdings for other currencies, but they are unlikely to sell the lot.

The overall conclusion: the sky is not falling. Foreign private investors have continued to invest in the US as they have been doing since the late 19th century. Since 1983, they have chosen to invest much more of their savings in the US stock market, i.e., they have both increased & diversified their investments. More than three-quarters of all capital flows into the US from 1983 to 2004, have been private investments in the private sector.

Christopher Westley’s article is solidly libertarian. But I should like to indicate here, some of the very real complexities of Iraq.

1. Iraq is not ‘composed of three nations, Shia, Sunni & Kurd’. ‘Shia’ & ‘Sunni’ are religious divisions, dating back to the 8th century, & found right through the Islamic world. Sunnis are in a large majority amongst Muslims; Iran & Iraq are the only two areas with Shiite majorities. In addition, Iraq has significant Christian minorities.

2. In addition, in Iraq, there are ethnic groups & divisions. Most Iraqis are Arabs, but there are Kurds & Turkmen in the north. Kurds are in a majority there, with significant Turkmen & Arab minorities. Kurds speak Kurdish; Turkmen speak Turkish. Kurds & Turkmen are mostly Sunni, but again, there are important Shia minorities amongst them.
3. The Shias are mostly concentrated in the South. But the region also has a Sunni minority.

4. The central region, which includes Baghdad, has a Sunni majority. But it also has a very important Shia minority. The Shia suburbs of Baghdad are the stronghold of Muqtada al-Sadr, who has very large followings in many Iraqi towns & cities from north to south. Al-Sadr is a cleric whose family line descends from the Prophet. He & his immediate family suffered greatly under Saddam. Al-Sadr strongly favours a powerful central government, because his powerbase is found through most Iraqi cities.

5. The present impasse in Iraqi politics results from the political rivalries between Al-Sadr & another significant Shia cleric, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, whose family line also goes back to the Prophet. His family too were persecuted under Saddam. Al-Hakim leads the ‘Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq’ (SCIRI), which rules the Shia majority areas in the South. His family & that of Al-Sadr have competed for decades to lead all Shias. It is this rivalry which has prevented the formation of a central government.

6. Thus: a key Shiite political leader is strongly in favour of a central government, because his main power base is in Baghdad, & his followers are found throughout Iraq’s cities.

7. Minorities in all regions are permanent minorities, because they are ethnic/religious minorities. Hence they too favour a strong central government: hoping this will curb the regional & provincial governments, run by the majority groups.

8. Thus it is not the case that ‘Iraqis’ prefer a central power vacuum, while the occupying powers want a strong central regime. Iraq in 2006 is Iraq in 2006. It is not a carbon copy of America in 1776 or 1861 or any other period.

The above are one of the parties fighting the General Election in Britain on the 5th May. Their ‘Manicfesto’ is delightful, although some references are veddy British: http://www.omrlp.com/

A sample:

“All WMD’s (weapons of Mass Distraction) will be made highly visible so that we can find them.”

“Any politician wanting to start a war will be shipped off to the country in question with a bag of conkers [chestnuts]. They can then conker the country themselves.”

I’ve just come across the word coined for the first taxes imposed in early North India c.400 BC. They were known as ‘bali’ [rhymes with 'gully']. ‘Bala’ means ‘strength’; so ‘bali’ is ‘acquired by (superior)strength’ – ie,extortion.