Hopefully the new boss is not the same as the old boss, who, in the last few years, edited a magazine that has increasingly moved away from its liberal tradition, perceptibly found more faith in government action and embraced a whole plethora of questionable agenda – most notably, global warming. I cancelled my subscription some time ago. Here’s hoping the new editor gives cause to take it up again.
|
|||||
|
We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people. Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house] Authors
Arts, Tech & CultureCivil LibertiesCommentary
EconomicsSamizdatistas |
The Economist awaits a new editorApril 1st, 2006 |
 43 comments to The Economist awaits a new editor |
Who Are We?The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling. We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe. CategoriesArchivesFeed This PageLink Icons   |
|||
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. |
|||||
Yeah, hear hear.
Many years ago I labeled The Economist as “The Intelligent Persons Guide to the 20th Century”
I gave up reading it long before I gave up buying it.
As someone who knows the “old boss” to some extent, I think the criticism is unfair. I think you can see the liberal tradition oozing through the magazine’s pages. The simple fact is that there is as good a scientific consensus as you can get that global warming is happening and that humans are causing some of the world’s warming – right wingers can object, they can say global warming is a myth, but the Economist has always had a commitment to empirical evidence.
The Economist is not Samizdata. But neither were the 19th Century liberals like Cobden.
FYI, the new editor is John Micklethwaite.
And of course Samizdata has no particular editorial opinion on it… we’ve never taken a poll on who stands where. I would be in the camp that would say it is real, it will have economic effects spread out over much of this century, and it will tail off as our technology gets better and the population peaks and tails off.
Climate change and population growth will not be the pending disaster du jour of 2106. More likely it will be the falling population ratio between humans and robots, whether releasing defensive assembler nanobots into the environment as a first line of anti-terrorist defense is a good idea, and not to mention the things I can’t mention because I can’t even imagine them.
falling population ratio between humans and robots
Nah.
What makes you think that the integration of the artificial with the biological won’t make the distinction just a matter of opinion?
Now I really can see that causing a bit of a fuss.
“He’s seen circulation double worldwide (from 510,000 to 1.06 million) and actually outstrip the FT here in Britain. He’s watched profitability ratios move to between 15 per cent and 20 per cent.” – Grauniad
So he’s giving people the news/opinions they want to hear and competing successfully in a fairly open marketplace (beyond setting-up fees). Well, well done to him.
The simple fact is that there is as good a scientific consensus as you can get that global warming is happening and that humans are causing some of the world’s warming
Bullshit. While it seems likely we are in some kind of warming trend, there is anything but a “consensus” that the contribution made to it by human activity is detectable, much less significant.
We are such a long way from understanding the inputs, variables and feedback loops that contribute to weather on this planet that it is ludicrous to point to anthropogenic CO2 as a cause of anything (other than lavishly funded conferences and studies, that is).
Simply sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “consensus” over and over again doesn’t make it true.
Simply sticking your fingers in your ears and saying “bullshit” over and over again doesn’t make it untrue either.
A commitment to empirical evidence is what weighs against Global Warming. When you run the mathematical models backwards, they can’t “predict” the climate – so why would you believe them when they are run forwards?
“…and it will tail off as our technology gets better…”
It will tail off when the next natural cooling trend is detected.
There is a difference between thinking that global warming exists, and advocating a policy which is illiberal.
I think there is a case to be made for government funded research into very-long payoff topics. Fusion is a good example. I think even libertarians could agree on this.
So you can easily advocate research which would replace our energy sources in the future. There are real emissions from oil, coal, and fission, even without global warming. I think a policy to fund research into alternative energy is a great idea and is all likelihood the way global warming would be solved. [if it exists :]
As far as the Economist, I think they provide an important view, even if you disagree.
I gave up subscribing to the Economist a couple of years back, it was hard since I’d been a faithful reader since 1979, but they were just too leftist and bigoted for me.
On ‘Global Warming’ I’ve never trusted a so called scientific theory that fitted perfectly with the political agenda of the enviros. The climate is changing but that is probably due more to a change in long term solar activity combined with a possibility that the whole solar system is passing through a part of the galaxy where the cosmic ray bombardment is different than it was over the last couple of hundred years.
Little old ladies driving SUVs have little if anything to do with it.
Global warming is a given. As Taylor points out, what is not so well known is the pretty good evidence suggesting that it is happening throughout the solar system.
The evidence for a human contribution is far from clear and definitive. I’m old enough to remember warnings that pollution was causing global cooling and we were about to start another ice age. The old particulates versus gases problem.
We had better assume that the planet is going to continue warming regardless of what we do. Unless one proposes releasing particulates in accordance with the global cooling theory.
One possibility I think, is that we are in a phase of the solar cycle that could thaw enough ice to shut off the gulf stream. That would make northern Europe an interesting place.
When people talk about all of the carbon we’re releasing, I can’t help but wonder at all of the carbon stored in the form of limestone-etc and wonder ‘Have we even made a dent in total release of previously free ‘carbon?’ I don’t know.
Ignore the flying single quote leading carbon?’, please.
The climate has never remained static and the world is currently cooler than the historical average. To what extent human activity influences climate change is another matter entirely.
My problem with predictions of catastrophic climate change is that they all rely on the assumption that some or another factor has been limiting the rate of climate change up until now, but soon we’re going to reach a tipping point. It all sounds just a little dubious.
There’s an Australian concierge who didn’t know where the personal data is in a modern passport from any modern country? Wowie. zowie! This was part of her job?
What do you mean, awaits? Alex doesn’t have the inside dope here. (Though he probably did, when it still was the inside dope.) The new editor has been known in Britain – even to distracted asocials like me – to be John Micklethwaite (any relation, Brian?) for a couple of weeks at least. Is Australia that far behind GMT?
Midwesterner, et al. –
I just went to a series of job-market presentations for a new position in the Dept. of Geography at the University of Idaho. The position was for a biogeographer with expertise in carbon flux processes, i.e. the carbon contribution to global warming, or climate change processes.
The presentations were interesting, to say the least. As noted above, global warming does appear to be occurring (at least that was the unspoken assumption in all of the presentations). However, the actual processes about how carbon is generated, stored, released and the absorbed by the biosphere and the atmosphere is not very well known. Ipso facto, the measurement of human contributions to the total carbon budget are not well known or measured.
One of the things that struck me was the simplicity of the models in light of the complexity of the interrelationships between the component elements. Most of the models are simple univariate models of carbon output, but there isn’t any incorporation of models for endogeneity or simultaneity in the model structures. The gentlemen making the presentations are all part of the gov’t research apparatus (maybe why there is the given of warming), so this seems to be the general state of the science here in the US.
So we might be warming up for the long term, or we might just be experiencing a brief warm-up in the midst of a general cooling trend. Just to note, England used to be a wine producing nation back in the early Middle Ages, so when they craft a nice brace of reds in Southampton, we’ll be reverting to the mean that existed in 1100.
SKP, I think any model that was accurate would be hidiously and untestably complex. Just ‘little’ things like the effect of temperature increase on atmospheric clarity on photosynthesis on carbon capture, etc. And getting a precise estimate of ocean respiration is essential to any useful model since most of the earth is ocean. Except every square mile of ocean is going to behave a little (or a lot) differently. One would also have to calculate how the increase in CO2 may slow down decomposition of organic material thus etc …..
I seriously think the variables are so great that any prediction is mostly intuition backed by very narrowly conducted research.
For decades, the Economist has been a little facile — ready to seize on any data point that apparently reinforces their preconceived ideas (and to ignore inconvenient data). With that track record, it was inevitable that the Economist would become yet another empty-headed banger of alleged anthropogenic global warming’s “Bigger Government” drum. The Economist’s circulation may have been going up under the previous editor, but there has also been an expanding pool of former Economist subscribers. This reminds us that the real world is complex, which brings us back to alleged anthropogenic global warming.
One aspect which is often ignored is that there is no (none, nada, zip) definition of what constitutes global warming. Western Antarctic ice sheets are thinning, while eastern Antarctic ice is getting thicker; is that global warming? We have long term surface temperature data over less than half the planet’s surface (and that half is unrepresentative of the planet as a whole). Do we even know what is happening?
A second aspect is that we are likely to run short of sources of carbon (fossil fuels) in decades, whereas even the believers in alleged anthropogenic global warming assert it will hurt us in centuries. Worrying about alleged anthropogenic global warming would be a little like Londoners during the Black Death worrying about the problems of getting old.
SKP,
England used to be a wine producing nation
England still is a whine producing country.
Alice, enjoyed your comment. But global warming as measured over a 150 year interval in Wisconsin is definite.
This chart shows days of ice cover each year. We have lost very approximately 40 days of ice cover per year on a lake that I sometimes iceboat on. This graph(Link) will show you that the shortest number of days of ice cover prior to 1981 was 62 days. We’ve had 4 years under that amount since then and 2001 was 21 days of ice cover. As a comparatively short term phenomenon it’s real. Yet others have pointed out in the geologic time frame, we’re still cold.
I stopped my subscription long ago when they apparenlty coined a new and idiotic term: semi-dictatorship.
“Iraq’s semi-dictatorship.”
From then on I knew I wouldnt be gaining any insight from The Economist.
Chris Harper: Good one…………but seriously, chaps, the Romans cultivated the grape in Britannia & it flourished somewhat but, when they went home, we were invaded by beer-swilling Scandihoovians & the vine was forgotten until fairly recently. Some small time ago I presented a Kentish plonk to a German friend who recommended that we stick to apples. Things have improved since then & I’m sure our vintners are, with much catching-up to do, among the best. Dates, details etc. fom Euan Gray would be appreciated.
Oh yes……The Economist ….to which I have been happily subscribing since I can’t remember. Jesus H. Christ….everyones looking for Paradise & the perfect newspaper. I read the paper because it doesn’t preach at me & page three is devoted to print. Whatever the editorial opinion I think that the publishers are aware that most readers are reasonably smart & able to sort the wheat from the chaff. Y’know?
Right they are always not…. Who the hell is?
It’s a good newspaper for those with limited time to keep up with world affairs. You don’t agree with some articles/reporting. Good for you. You’re thinking.
RE permexpat’s post: I simply don’t believe England ever produced any wines worth drinking. Gobal warming wan’t that ahead of the game. I think it’s a myth. The Romans brought their viticulture with them and tried to make it work, and probably produced some simply dreadful wines which they drank because it was better than nothing. We’ve all been there.
The Romans should be grateful they didn’t conquer Sweden.
Alice,
For decades, the Economist has been a little facile — ready to seize on any data point that apparently reinforces their preconceived ideas (and to ignore inconvenient data).
How wholly unlike anyone commenting here!
Guy:
Apologies for relaying such belated news. I look forward to your advance e-mail when The Bulletin (Australia’s closest equivalent to The Economist) is formulating plans to find a new editor.
I’ve been subscribing to The Economist for a few years now, and still enjoy its articles more than those of any other publication (blos excepted, of course). I noticed a lurch to the Left following their decision to support the Iraq war. Apparently, this caused a huge split in the editorial team and upset a lot of their staff and readers. It looked as though they then spent a couple of years trying to pander to the anti-war crowd without actually admitting they were wrong. Things have improved in the last 6 months or so, but not to where I think they should be.
My annual subscription is due next month, I will be watching their output carefully to decide if it will be my last.
Actually, I should clarify: I do not believe The Economist was wrong in supporting the war. And when I wrote “blos”, I meant “blogs”.
Alex, I just have one big problem with the global warming cohort. How come thirty years ago – less than a blink of an eye in earth shaking chronologies – we were all supposed to freeze in the dark? How did it happen that the global big freeze turned into a global meltdown seemiongly overnight?
Like it or not, but one thing is for certain; you will not find this kind of uncompromised, clear cut reasoning in any of the other large, international magazines:
“As long as rich-country governments insist on imposing an unenforceable prohibition on cocaine consumption, Andean governments will continue to be faced with the thankless task of trying to repress market forces.”
http://www.economist.com/world/la/displayStory.cfm?story_id=5636088
For me, the lurch to the left began long before Iraq or even before the end of the cold war. Norman MacCrae was editor at until 1985 or 1986 (I Think). He had brains guts and I believe some military experience. He understood instictively what was happening in places like Afghanistan, Lebanon and the North German Plain. Today few if any editors have that kind of understanding so they often make stupid mistakes.
BTW I may not have made myself clear, “Climate Change” is a given, not necessarily global warming
John Micklethwait is indeed related to Brian of this parish.
I quite enjoyed JM’s recent book on American rightwing politics even though some of its treatment of subjects like Ayn Rand was superficial and a bit snarky about Rand and libertarianism.
The Economist is also opposed to guns, BTW, and has been a cheerleader for gun control in recent years. It is, however, pretty sound on many subjects, including globalisation.
Anyone who still thinks the global warmers have science on their side, and who is not scared of some real maths, should have a look at
http://www.climateaudit.org.
Norman Macrae was *deputy* editor of The Economist, passed over more than once for the top job for being too eccentric. The smarmy Andrew Knight and the colourless Rupert Pennant-Rea had the chair in Macrae’s time. He was eventually shunted into an ‘editor-at-large’/futurologist gig.
I was twice offered jobs on The Economist in these years and refused them because most of the staff in St James were such smug gits. They really thought they were the unacknowledged legislators of the world, not suppliers of pabulum for waiting rooms and Asian businessmen.
Everybody pays lip service to the paper’s influence, but you hardly ever see it quoted or breaking a scoop. Whichever way it’s swinging, it has a sophomoric knowingness that makes it at best untrustworthy (e.g. in writing about subjects I know about, so why not the others?) and at worst risible. And nowadays it has nobody like Macrae to think outside the box.
The Reader’s Digest of the airport lounge classes.
Luniversal
Thanks for setting me straight on Norman Macrae.
Your comment on Reader’s Digest reminds me of Susan Sontag’s line; that someone who only read RD was better informed about the Soviet Union than someone who only read The Nation.
James
Think you’re being a little harsh on the Economist. It is consistently an informative magazine on politics and business. It is unswervingly loyal to free trade, globalisation, low taxes and reduced regulation. There aren’t many magazines that can boast of that.
If you want an example of a business publication that has horribly lost its way into anti-West propaganda, then look no further than the dire Financial Times.
btw – any good publications in Australia you’d recommend? I landed here a couple of weeks ago.
Johnathan – gun control seems to be an obsession within these pages but nowhere else.
Luniversal, given your deeply reactionary opinions, I’d be surprised if a venerable organ of liberal opinion like the Economist would offer you a job. God Almighty, the Economist must have been desperate.
Sounded like a sneer to me…………….
You’d better hope there’s global warming, we’re better suited as a species than for global cooling, which a Russian scientist recently said we’re heading for in about 50 years.
Johnathan: They were so desperate that when I refused the first time, Andrew Knight rang me at home begging me to change my mind. He couldn’t believe that anyone would say thanks but no thanks to the Economist.
As Michael Crichton said, “scientific consensus” is a nonsense. Either you can prove what you say, or you’re not doing science but speculation, propaganda, what have you.
“I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. ” Aliens Cause Global Warming
The best thing about the Economist is its sometimes excellent surveys of industries and major trends. It sometimes picks up on trends miles ahead of the regular newspapers. It rarely breaks a major scoop although I don’t think that is how it is designed to work.
If they offered me a writing slot, I’d take it in a heartbeat.