Found, at last, the connection between Hayek and Climate! And from a most unlikely source, Climate Etc. Because it is at CE it is, of course, wrong. Even better, it is merely copied wrongness, from King Canute vs. the Climate Planners by “Jeffrey Tucker” (who?) at the Foundation for Economic Education, whoever they are (you might prefer the RationalWiki take).
Ignore the gumpf about Paris, wade through the irrelevance about Canute, and come to the interesting (to me; I’m not claiming to have carried you along) bit:
…the extraordinary speech F.A. Hayek gave when he received his Nobel Prize. He was speaking before scientists of the world… Rather than flattering the scientific establishment, particularly as it existed in economics, he went to the heart of what he considered the greatest intellectual danger that was arising at the time. He blew apart the planning mindset, the presumption that humankind can do anything if only the right people are given enough power and resources.
If the planning elite possessed omniscience of all facts, flawless understanding of cause and effect, perfect foresight to know all relevant changes that could affect the future, and the ability to control all variables, perhaps their pretensions would be justified.
But this is not the case. Hayek called the assumption the harshest possible word: “charlatanism.”
In the climate case, consider that we can’t know with certainty…
So, there’s lots wrong with this. Hayek doesn’t have a Nobel prize; he was awarded the 1974 Prize for Economic Science in Memory of Alfred Nobel (jointly with Gunnar Myrdal); but to be fair it is commonplace to glide over the distinction, so almost-never-mind. The reason I say “almost” is because of the segue into before scientists of the world: this was the Economics prize, so wouldn’t have had the same audience as the Science ones (at least, so I’d guess; if anyone knows better, do let me know). What’s happening here is that “Jeffrey Tucker” is unsubtlely and dishonestly building a non-existence connection with Science in general and GW in particular.
That Hayek was opposed to central planning of the economy is just bog standard. It was part of what he got the prize for, so inevitably it was what he talked about. To go from there to suggest that he opposes all planning, which is what the article does, is ridiculous. The article itself is a foolish mish-mash of confusing different ideas; Hayek himself would have ripped it to shreds with precision; I’ll just content myself with insulting it1. But what of Hayek on planning? Hayek’s main emphasis is to oppose central planning, so it is easy to find lots of quotes with him saying Bad Things about planning. But what about the reverse? The Road to Serfdom (condensed version) section “The liberal way of planning” says
The dispute between the modern planners and the liberals is not on whether we ought to employ systematic thinking in planning our affairs. It is a dispute about what is the best way of so doing… It is important not to confuse opposition against [central] planning with a dogmatic laissez faire attitude. The liberal argument does not advocate leaving things just as they are… It emphasizes that in order to make competition work beneficially a carefully thought-out legal framework is required, and that neither the past nor the existing legal rules are free from grave defects… There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question…
And I’m sure I could find more. But whoever the FEE are, they aren’t honest.
1. It is drivel written by a twat. There: I’ve done my duty and can stop.