April 3, 2008
That's One Unscientific American
Don Luskin links to a Scientific American story that, well, let me steal Luskin's summation:
"Economics as a whole is invalid because, as I define economics, it doesn't yield the politically correct alarmist interpretation of global warming."
As Dave Berry might say, he is not making this up.
Unfortunately, it is clear that neoclassical economics has also become outdated. The theory is based on unscientific assumptions that are hindering the implementation of viable economic solutions for global warming and other menacing environmental problems.
I'm starting to understand how Galileo felt. Our scientific community has been replaced by a ruling class of religious wackos who care more about Orthodoxy than truth.
Eppur si muove, Dr, Nadeau, Eppur si muove.
1. Doesn't he have to be an economist to make such statements? Such seems to be the policy with respect to critiques of the 'science' of global warming.
2. The Austrian school of economics rejects neoclassical theory on similar grounds and yet most, if not all, Austrians view intervention with respect to global warming as unwarranted as well. In fact, many Austrian justify opposition to intervention through the failure of the neoclassical theory of intervention.
Posted by: HB at April 4, 2008 9:31 PMA mention of Crichton's 'State of Fear' is appropriate here.
I'm just starting to read it so I can't cite any analogies.
But let me get this straight: The man (Robert Nadeau) who says there is a worldwide "environmental crisis" - a view principally supported by extensive mathematical modeling - claims that neoclassical economic theory is "outdated" because its mathematical theories are predicated on certain "unscientific assumptions." Can this guy pull rabbits from hats or what!
Posted by: johngalt at April 6, 2008 3:40 PM | What do you think? [2]