Ig-Nobel

Would a physicist or chemist with work that spawned persistent criticisms about mishandling data win the Nobel Prize? For that matter, would one with even a glimmer of empirical doubt even make the short list? The obvious answer is no. The Peace Prize is a political prize just as global warming is a religious debate. The sold-out bluehairs in Oslo are clearly more interested in gestures and PR on this issue than they are in concrete, irrefutable advance. Just like the Academy in Los Angeles.

The question is not whether the Earth is getting warmer. It is, with little doubt. How much warmer, the extent and reversibility of humans' contribution, and the dynamics of change are all far murkier questions. Roughshod empirical work and calls for immediate action before such work can be performed are neither laudable nor excusable in fields other than "Peace."

Given that the Nobel Prize is considered the acme of the economics profession, the award of the Peace Prize to Albert should raise doubts about the objectivity of the selection process and the value of assiduous empirical detail to the committee. Presumably (hopefully) a different batch of bluehairs are responsible for evaluating work in other fields.

Picking Winners

My cerebral disdain for predictions does not diminish my personal fascination with them. In light of the impending big announcement, "the short list" has been hypothesized. It looks pretty safe to me--I would think all are locks for eventual recognition. However, others certainly are in the same category, and how they have been winnowed out in 2007 is unclear, even after taking the micro/macro pattern into account.

Polarizing Tails

Two popular books recently released to capture the minds of the next generation on the global warming issue have engendered a preposterously polarized debate, as the surprisingly similar amazon reviews here and here show. With entrenched convictions approaching religious ideologies, do any economists honestly believe that their study will make a difference?