Date created:6 August 2001 Last modified: 6 August 2001 Maintained by: John Quiggin John Quiggin
19 July 2001
Among the many uses of the World Wide Web is that of 'Googling' acquaintances, potential partners and so on. This new verb means using the Google search engine to check someone's public record on the Internet. With the proliferation of grandly-named think tanks, Googling also provides a convenient way of locating commentators on the political spectrum.
For example, a search on "Quiggin" and "Institute" reveals that my work is regularly published by the (leftish) Australia Institute and the (centrist) Melbourne Institute, and occasionally by the more conservative Sydney Institute. By contrast, the (free-market conservative) Institute for Public Affairs attacks me regularly. The hardline right-wing Institute for Private Enterprise (which appears to consist solely of Mr. Des Moore) presents me as a bumbler who is routinely 'trounced' when I am foolish enough to engage in public debate. It is easy enough to infer that, among economists, I am towards the interventionist ('left') end of the spectrum.
A more general question is whether economists can be neutral scientific experts, or whether involvement in the economic policy debate entails political commitments. It is possible to separate objective beliefs about the way the economy works from value-judgements about how it ought to work. However, the policy issues debated by economists are so intertwined with the major political questions facing the electorate that it is almost impossible for an active policy economist to avoid taking a political position, though not necessarily a party-political position.
These questions came to mind in thinking about the response to my recent critique of the Lavoisier Group (Wishful thinking of Walsh's true believers, 11 April), which attracted more attention (friendly and hostile) than anything I have written for some time. The issues at stake include the fate of the planet (if the scientists are right) and the fate of Australian democracy (if the Lavoisier Group is right).
A number of respondents took exception to my observation that most of the scientists presented by the Lavoisier Group as independent sceptics ''turn out to have links to the fossil fuel industry or to right-wing thinktanks'. One of my critics was even kind enough to provide his own list of independent sceptics. Googling quickly revealed that Patrick Michaels is a Senior Fellow at the (libertarian) Cato Institute, Sallie Baliunas is a director of the (pro-missile defence) Marshall Institute, Craig Idso writes for the (free-market conservative) Heritage Institute, and so on. Michaels and Idso are also funded by the fossil fuel industry. It seems that every right-wing institute has its resident greenhouse sceptic, and vice versa.
In fact, such is the proliferation of right-wing institutes that there are not enough sceptics to go around, and some have to be shared. The redoubtable Robert Balling, for example, is on the board of the Goldwater Institute, but also writes for the Pacific Research Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the American Petroleum Institute, while still finding time to work for the government of Kuwait.
The most credible of the sceptics, Richard Lindzen of MIT, has proved a disappointment for the likes of the Lavoiser Group. He was a member of the expert panel appointed by the US National Academy of Science which recently confirmed the reality of global warming. While noting uncertainties, the committee stated that it 'generally agrees with the assessment of human-caused climate change presented in the IPCC Working Group I (WG I) scientific report' which 'accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue'. Lindzen still opposes the Kyoto Protocol and criticises aspects of the IPCC models, but he is now too close to the scientific consensus position for the comfort for the Lavoisier Group.
Some correspondents suggested that I had been unfair in suggesting that the Lavoisier Group believed that 'fairies at the bottom of the garden' would make the global warming problem go away. A closer examination of the Group's output suggests a belief, not only in fairies, but in demons and hobgoblins. In a recent Parliamentary submission, the Group asserted that the Kyoto Protocol raised 'the fear of invasion' and represented 'Éthe most serious challenge to our sovereignty since the Japanese Fleet entered the Coral Sea on 3 May, 1942.'
Finally, I can't resist commenting on the suggestion by Andrew Thomson MHR (Letters 17 April) that Peter Walsh's views should be given special credence because, unlike me, Walsh '.had the guts to seek election to Parliament' Does Thomson really believe that only politicians and ex-politicians are entitled to participate in public debate?
Professor John Quiggin is a Senior Research Fellow of the Australian Research Council, based at the Australian National University and Queensland University of Technology.Read more articles from John Quiggin's home page
