Could Austrians Be Biased?

It's a day in my maturity: the Mises Institute is no longer on my bookmarks toolbar.

Those voracious Austrians have long been making the case for free markets and small government to wandering undergraduates such as myself, interrupting those lessons only to make lessons on why no government would probably be even better. They will certainly go on with the show, serving as the naive capitalist's confirmation bias for decades to come.

I'll be okay only hearing about it second hand.

The straw that fatally injured the camel was global warming. Now, I wouldn't claim to be an expert on geophysics or meteorology. I have never taken a class in climate science, and frankly I don't really care about the topic at all. There are a ton of guys with white lab coats and some of them even wear glasses, and they have apparently made a case that humans are causing global warming and it's going to be a bad, bad thing. I've never heard one of them comment on the median voter model or diminishing utility, and I'm willing to keep up the contract and be blissfully ignorant about, um... greenhouse gasses and stuff. I like studying how people interact more than how water molecules interact, so I find climate change discussion kind of boring.

The good people at Mises, however, have uniformly fallen into line as global warming deniers. The lock-step consensus astounds me, as you would think nothing about believing in a certain methodology for researching economic phenomena would give you a certain tendency to oppose mainstream scientific research. After all, none of these guys have Ph.D.'s in anything remotely useful - it's all just social sciences and a few law degrees. What about this group would give them a unique scientific perspective?

Of course, it's the ramifications of the existence of man-made global warming that Mises followers do not like. Any individual can reasonably have a differing opinion from mainstream scientists, but when nearly every individual in a certain group has that opinion, it's clear they have found a conclusion which does not fit their worldview and therefor have rejected that conclusion.

Anything you hear from a libertarian as scientific arguments against anthropological global warming probably doesn't come from a deep-seated passion for climate science which led that individual to a unique conclusion. It comes from an undying need to be right, paired with a drunken disinterest in actually finding the truth.

I'm focusing more on micro now. Macro is a religion, and those kinds of wars are played out.