Central banks around the world have engaged in unconventional monetary over the past five years. Quantitative Easing (where central banks create money to buy long-dated governments bonds or even mortgage-backed securities) and forward guidance (where central banks commit to low interest rates until certain criteria are met) are the new tools in the central banking tool-kit. However, many commentators are concerned about the distributional consequences of these policies i.e., that they benefit Wall Street at the expense of Main Street. Indeed, in this WSJ article, the Fed's former main Quantitative Easer argues that Fed has been captured by Wall Street banks and is pursuing these unconventional policies at their behest. In other words, the Fed is no longer an independent central bank! Click here for an op-ed by Raghuram Rajan, the Governor of the Reserve Bank of India, on unconventional monetary policy.
The Berkeley Earth Project , an independent study of global warming, has found that the earth has become a degree warmer over the past half century. However, the statistical uncertainty surrounding pre-1920 estimates makes it very hard to say much about long-term trends - click here for graph . This is one of my concerns with the global warming debate - we simply don't have trustworthy long-run data which looks at temperature changes over the last millennium (or two). My second concern with the global warming debate is that it is very hard to prove any sort of casual link between global warming and human activity. The scientists may be able to show correlation between global warming and our production of carbon dioxides etc., but correlation is not causation. My third concern with the debate is that those who are sceptical or agnostic are stereotyped as flat-earthers or intellectually-challenged crackpots. This only stifles debate and the progress of science itself.