The corruption of science is now out in the open with the Climategate emails. An apparent H1N1 scandal may also be in the process of being uncovered. To see such corruption where the explicit goal of science is to “find the truth” is dismaying. “Hard” science does not deal in gray areas. Something is true or not true. It cannot be otherwise. If it is conditionally true. It is so until subsequent data proves it false. The behavior of the data determines which classification applies or at least it should. When science becomes politicized, it no longer serves its master, truth-seeking.
The social sciences are quite different from the hard sciences. In the behavioral sciences, empirical studies arguably can prove little. There is “room to maneuver” when supporting or attacking various policy positions. One’s ideology virtually roams free. Rationalization to the preferred solution or policy recommendation can usually be found rather easily, even without fudging the data. Picking the right time period, for example, can enable one to argue that raising the minimum wage actually increases low-wage employment. Most economists have ideologies. Few can contain them. If you identify the economist as from the “right” or “left,” prediction in advance of his findings is almost assured.
An empirical study that claims that higher prices (higher minimum wage) create higher demand is on its face nonsensical. It runs against everything that we know about human behavior. To believe such a conclusion, you cannot be a true economist. Yet, economists have published just such findings. The late George Stigler described empirical work as “keep one eye on the hypothesis and the other eye on the data and then somehow bring the two together.” Data dredging to find time periods that might support your hypothesis is one way. While not ethical, it beats changing the actual data to fit the hypothesis.
To understand any of this behavior, it is only necessary to paraphrase Lord Acton: Money corrupts and lots of money corrupts absolutely. Jorg Guido Hulsman pinpoints why so many economists support the Fed:
The Fed has had one great success: it is by far the largest funder of academic research in monetary and macroeconomics, employing hundreds of economists, financing conferences and seminars, providing paid consultancies, and so on. Is it any wonder that the majority of academic monetary and macroeconomists support the status quo? Jorg Guido Hulsman
Simply put, economists support the Fed because the Fed supports them.
Thank you for hosting such a useful portal. Your blog was not only useful but also very inventive too. We find very few people who can write not so easy stuff that creatively. We look forward to much more !!
My compassion for the human race is something I lost along time ago. In the grand scheme of things we are less then an instant in time. Smaller then a mist particle in the ocean spray. I do not understand why we indulge ourselves in grandiose rhetoric about this planet and how important we are to it and to each other. Our demise would not be bad or good, nor would we be missed. We sit precariously balanced on the top of the food chain seemingly unaware that the universe will eventually anoint us with extinction.
I must not be the only one that finds global warming interesting. Not to be macabre but to see the seas rise, seems much more interesting then the Super Bowl. To think of Detroit as the tropics seems somehow fitting. Imagine the new plant species that would become part of our world. I could go on, but why don’t you use your imagination for a few minutes. Devour or be devoured. Your flesh and your intellect are both consumable items. It’s up to you to find your place on the food chain, be it flesh or intellect. Its probably not up to you in reality. Your choses have long been taken. For some odd reason I wanted to give you hope. Some residual human compassion flashback that hits me ever so often.
The absorption chiller cycle http://www.ebmservicesinc.com/solarpanel/yazaki-chiller-diagram.jpg . This machine produces chilled water. The water is used to air-condition buildings. As an example of the size of these machines, the Watergate has three of them that provide air-conditioning to the entire Watergate complex. Approximately 6000 tons of air-conditioning. That is equal to the heat absorbed by melting 12,000,000 pounds of ice in an hour, every hour.
Two simple principles are applied to bring this about. The first; salt absorbs water and secondly the temperature that water boils (evaporates) is directly proportional to the pressure. The pressure needed for human comfort air-conditioning is very near a perfect vacuum. To achieve this a vacuum pump is attach to the machine and all the air (non-condensibles) are removed from the machine. This will allow the water within the machine to boil (vaporize) at 40F. To speed up the process a brine (salt) solution (usually Lithium Bromide) is added to attract the water vapor. Just like your salt shaker attracts and absorbs water into it on a humid day.
When the proper pressures are not maintained all goes awry and the machine no longer can produce. The cause for problems comes from several areas. Leaks in the vessel, gases formed by the chemical reaction of the steel vessel and Lithium Bromide (usually hydrogen) and condenser water instability.
The absorption chiller uses water as its refrigerant. Your home most likely uses R-22 as its refrigerant. The same problems could arise if non-condensables were to enter your system. Since your R-22 system is under a relatively high pressure 68-350 psi it does not take in contaminates, it simply just leaks until it no longer works, where as you call a repair man, who fixes the leak, removes all the air and adds a new charge of R-22.
The main condensible in your everyday life is rain. The main non-condensible is nitrogen and oxygen. If for whatever reason the equation is altered a physical reaction will take place. In the past couple of decades some scientist have come to the conclusion that the globe is warming. This comes as no surprise to me. It’s been my belief for the past four decades.
Where I differ is that I find it interesting. Way better than the Super Bowl. But I’m an old selfish man now and have nothing to loose, accept for maybe one generation of grandchildren. After that they are just future generations of humans that none of us living today will ever know. In the scheme of things I wonder why I lost my compassion for the human race? Let the show begin. Well on second thought it already has. And don’t worry in a few million years it will all recycle and there will be a bunch of new critters climbing the food chain and so on and so forth. Smoke um if you got um. Tobacco humm.
[...] Economics, Climategate and Defending the Fed By Monty Pelerin, posted December 12th, 2009 http://www.economicnoise.com/2009/12/12/economics-climategate-and-defending-the-fed/ [...]