Catallaxy Files

Now that Catallaxy Files seems to have settled in at the new server, I thought I’d bring you all up to speed on what has changed “under the hood” and what is yet to be done.
Read the rest of this entry »

Yes. I think Bernanke should go. Let’s hear first from Bryan Caplan.

Contrary to my expectations, Bernanke’s been a disaster. At the same time, though, I can’t honestly say that his successor will be any better. Why then do I strongly favor firing my former teacher? Accountability. When someone fails as badly as he has, he’s got to be fired to send a message to his successors.

The problem with Bernanke goes back to his testimony to the US Congress in September 2008. These words were the problem

Despite the efforts of the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, and other agencies, global financial markets remain under extraordinary stress. Action by the Congress is urgently required to stabilize the situation and avert what otherwise could be very serious consequences for our financial markets and for our economy.

As you will recall the Congress was not happy to just sign over $700 billion and did not pass the legislation Henry Paulson was proposing. In the meantime, the Fed chairman had told the world that markets would collapse and, of course, they subsequently did. This is isn’t suggesting that Bernanke is to blame, but he did make it worse. I would have let him serve out his term but not renewed it. Some economists I have spoken to would have sacked him then. But fast forward to 2009 and President Obama nominated him for a second term.

I’m not sure what to make of this news item.

Amidst the voter anger at Wall Street and Washington, D.C., ABC News has learned that the Senate Democratic leadership isn’t sure there are enough votes to re-confirm Ben Bernanke for another term as chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Bernanke’s term expires on Jan. 31.

First question is why has this been left so late? That is just slack. It is also bad news for the market – the US is about to go on a banking regulation frolic that is already causing market problems. The other point to emphasise is that Obama isn’t a second term President in his last year. To snub him so dramatically so early in his Presidency is a huge call. I can’t see it happening – although the outcome would be correct.
(HT: CL)
Update: When I first saw this story I thought it might be a ‘slow-news’ day type story, but the Intrade market is showing some movement (the graph below is closing prices, but the continuous traing graphs also show volitility). Before anyone gets too excited, the market is still suggesting he’ll get up.

(HT: Mankiw)
Update: The WSJ are reporting that Bernanke has been reappointed.

We all recall Phil Jones saying

Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

It seems he wasn’t the only one playing hard and fast with peer-review. Following hot on the heels of GlacierGate, we have another IPCC scandal on our hands. GlacierGate revealed that the IPCC would copy anything off the internet and pass it off as peer-reviewed research. Well they have been caught out doing it again.

While fact-checking an Oxfam publication the UK group Climate Resistance have turned up another anomaly in the 2007 IPCC Report. In a guest post at Roger Pielke Jr’s blog Ben Pile tells the story.

What attracted our attention most, however, was this claim

According to the IPCC, climate change could halve yields from rain-fed crops in parts of Africa as early as 2020, and put 50 million more people worldwide at risk of hunger. [Pg. 2]

We looked to see if it was true. All we could find in the IPCC report was this.

In other [African] countries, additional risks that could be exacerbated by climate change include greater erosion, deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture of up to 50% during the 2000-2020 period, and reductions in crop growth period (Agoumi, 2003). [IPCC WGII, Page 448. 9.4.4]

Oxfam cite the IPCC, but the citation belongs to Agoumi. The IPCC reference his study properly:

Agoumi, A., 2003: Vulnerability of North African countries to climatic changes: adaptation and implementation strategies for climatic change. Developing Perspectives on Climate Change: Issues and Analysis from Developing Countries and Countries with Economies in Transition. IISD/Climate Change Knowledge Network, 14 pp. (PDF).

There is only limited discussion of “deficiencies in yields from rain-fed agriculture” in that paper, and its focus is not ‘some’ African countries, but just three: Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria. It is not climate research. It is a discussion about the possible effects of climate change. All that the report actually says in relation to the IPCC quote, is that,

Studies on the future of vital agriculture in the region have shown the following risks, which are linked to climate change:
• greater erosion, leading to widespread soil degradation;
• deficient yields from rain-based agriculture of up to 50 per cent during the 2000–2020 period;
• reduced crop growth period;

Most interestingly, the study was not simply produced by some academic working in some academic department, for publication in some peer-reviewed journal. Instead, it was published by The International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD).

This is the fundamental problem

That the IPCC is citing non-peer-reviewed, non-scientific research from quasi governmental semi-independent sustainability advocacy organisations must say something about the dearth of scientific or empirical research. The paper in question barely provides any references for its own claims, yet by virtue of merely appearing in the IPCC’s 2007 AR4 report, a single study, put together by a single researcher, becomes “consensus science”.

This is not about Oxfam and this is not about the IISD – they are lobby groups who undertake research and advocacy work and so on. The IPCC have again been caught quoting second hand unrefereed sources to make their case. Generally there is nothing wrong with that, but the IPCC have set higher standards for themselves and we can plainly see that they are failing to maintain those standards.

In the comments at Pielke’s blog we see this gem by Richard Tol

This story must be wrong. The IPCC has just told us that there was only one error in the whole the Fourth Assessment Report.

Indeed. How much longer before people start referring to the ‘now discredited’ 2007 IPCC report.
(HT: Dover_Beach)

ABC Unleashed continues to dispense helpful advice to us all from those with greater wisdom and knowledge of the world than we have.

Simon Chapman the sociologist who made his career campaigning against tobacco suggests that we all set ourselves a travel reduction target to reduce our carbon footprint. He mentions an invitation he had a couple of years ago to travel, all expenses paid, to Geneva to speak for 15 minutes at a conference. He declined because “the carbon footprint involved and the derisory speaking time”.

Now, most of us would reckon it’s a pretty dopey idea to go all that way for 15 minutes of talking, whether or not we cared about our carbon footprint. About two minutes’ thought would be enough to convince me that it was all a very foolish idea.

Long distance flights are no fun and they need a pretty good purpose before we consider putting ourselves through the discomfort and jetlag. Perhaps Chapman is getting to the age where flying has lost its excitement and is using his carbon footprint as a more worthy reason to stop than simple discomfort?

He is now sending video presentations of his thoughts instead of going there. Great idea and a good use of modern technology. Of course carbon emissions will only be reduced if airlines cut their schedules which is unlikely even if all the sociology conferences in the world are replaced with Skype chats.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

“Which part of ‘no’ don’t you understand?” is a great political slogan.

It seems to have been a close thing; a 5 – 4 US Supreme Court decision in favour of free speech came through over night.

The Supreme Court threw out a 63-year-old law designed to restrain the influence of big business and unions on elections Thursday, ruling that corporations may spend as freely as they like to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress. The decision could drastically alter who gives and gets hundreds of millions of dollars in this year’s crucial midterm elections.

By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned two of its own decisions as well as the decades-old law that said companies and labor unions can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It also amends some of the McCain legislation.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

The take-home message is this:

Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Senate Republican leader who filed the first lawsuit challenging the McCain-Feingold law, praised the court for ”restoring the First Amendment rights” of corporations and unions. ”By previously denying this right, the government was picking winners and losers,” McConnell said.

Corporations and unions ultimately represent the interests of individuals but supressing their right to free speech, the US Congress had abridged the rights of those people who chose to organise their affairs via instruments such as corporations and unions.
(HT: Cafe Hayek)