Al Gore has made good money out of his excellent work as a Climate Change advocate. He has talent. He is smart. He has credibilty. He was wealthy to start with. He did not need donations like these denying wannabes!

Al power to Al Gore for his advocacy and independence on this vital issue!

Here’s what you initially said: And, by the way, your average economists is left of the political center, according to research by a bloke called Bryan Caplan.

Oh my mistake. And you think this is relevant why?

The only reason I raised the point at all was to head off the inevitable cry around here to the effect, “of course economists believe those things, they’re all right wing nutters”. Well, no, they’re not, They’re more likely than average to vote the way you do, comrade.

That’s the only point I was trying to make. It is actually an irrelevant point – why should anybody’s trust in the research of economists be affected by their voting patterns? It shouldn’t. But around here, absent clear thinking at times, it does matter.

So I don’t see what your point is. If you think I am in any way trying to lie or mislead you’ve misunderstood me.

captcha ‘mistakes’

Yep, that would be why I said “the research he uses’. What is unclear about this?

Here’s what you initially said: And, by the way, your average economists is left of the political center, according to research by a bloke called Bryan Caplan.

On Caplans idea that perhaps we should be a little less democratic and give the pro’s a veto, as it were, he seems to just discount the fact the pros vote lib dem. It seems reasonable to infer that professional economists would place a premium on economic matters when casting their votes, so the fact that they hold a more right wing view on a few matters x,y, and z, may well just be noise.

It was origionaly lukas at
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/why-deny-the-lobby-groupspolluters/#comment-178723

My comment
http://www.thestandard.org.nz/why-deny-the-lobby-groupspolluters/#comment-178815
was replying to Andrei I think….

Add a note to the buglist for Xmas-NewYear – find out why in the replies don’t attach sometimes.

Now you are making things up. “the most famous sceptics are what you describe as strawmen” does not even make sense. I haven’t even addressed anything those skeptics say. What are you on about?

So

i)it wasn’t him that did the research, he was quoting it;

Yep, that would be why I said “the research he uses”. What is unclear about this?

ii) laymen are not to the ‘right’ of economists on economic matters;

Left and right is usually a political distinction. Which is why I said, “And, by the way, your average economists is left of the political center”

iii) he grades economists as being ‘left of centre’ because they are lib dems for non economic reasons. ie, they are lib dems in spite of their more ‘right wing’ views on economcs.

Left and right is usually a political distinction. Which is why I said, “And, by the way, your average economists is left of the political center”

I’m seeing why you didn’t link.

And why is that exactly? Please explain.

This was precisely the approach that I used to analyze the best available data set on economic beliefs, the Survey of Americans and Economists on the Economy. The overarching finding: Economists and the public hold radically different beliefs about the economy.[4] Compared to the experts, laymen are much more skeptical of markets, especially international and labor markets, and much more pessimistic about the past, present, and future of the economy. When laymen see business conspiracies, economists see supply-and-demand. When laymen see ruinous competition from foreigners, economists see the wonder of comparative advantage. When laymen see dangerous downsizing, economists see wealth-enhancing reallocation of labor. When laymen see decline, economists see progress.[5]

While critics of the economics profession like to attribute these patterns to economists’ affluence, job security, and/or right-wing ideology, the facts are not with them. Controlling for income, income growth, job security, gender, and race only mildly reduces the size of the lay-expert belief gap. And, since the typical economist is actually a moderate Democrat, controlling for party identification and ideology makes the lay-expert belief gap get a little bigger. Economists think that markets work well not because of their extreme right-wing ideology, but despite their mild left-wing ideology.

http://www.cato-unbound.org/2006/11/06/bryan-caplan/the-myth-of-the-rational-voter/

So

i)it wasn’t him that did the research, he was quoting it;

ii) laymen are not to the ‘right’ of economists on economic matters;

and

iii) he grades economists as being ‘left of centre’ because they are lib dems for non economic reasons. ie, they are lib dems in spite of their more ‘right wing’ views on economcs.

I’m seeing why you didn’t link.

Who is making that mistake? Nobody here that I can see.

Anyway – what’s your point? That two wrongs make a right? Or is it that one or two nutcases disqualifies absolutely everything said by your opponent?

Note that around 80% of all the warming in the past century is due not to the raw data, but to the adjustments. The raw data shows warming, but only a fraction of the reported figure. Plainly, the process for adjusting needs to be done in plain view because the case for action depends in good part on what is happening there. If we’re going to be taxed and regulated, we need to be sure the books are not being cooked.

Of course he thinks the average economist is left of centre he’s paid by that bunch of libertarian nut-jobs at the Cato Institute to say so. Frankly, everyone this side of Ghengis Khan would qualify for the same moniker by Caplan’s standards.

Don’t you have anything other than ad hominems to throw? Is this really it?

The research Caplan uses in his book is not relative to him, it is relative to the population.

Say something substantive. Anything.