Freakonomics was one of my favorite books of the last few years and I was looking forward to the new book. But it is apparently stuffed full of science-denying horse puckey on the issue of climate change. That is sad.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Super Freakonomics In Global Warming Hot Water
October 17th, 2009
44 Comments
George Willism isn’t cool
I’m quite surprised that Oliver would be comfortable with Freakonomics.
We’re smart economists and so are therefore qualified to pontificate on every field, including the ones we’re totally not qualified in! Want to hear our free-markets explanation of Gauge Symmetry and why the Higgs Boson can’t possibly exist? See page 135! Want to know how risk securitization conclusively proves Goldbach’s conjecture? page 217!
Only a “science denier” would ignore new data.
Paul Krugman did a great takedown on the lack of scholarship.
SaveFarris goes to the Investor’s Business Daily for a turd of an editorial to which no one would attach their name.
If the best you can do is “it can’t be that bad, it snowed in Denver in October”, maybe you should just save your breath.
Thrill as Investor’s Business Daily leads the critical research into theoretical myassology. Again, this groundbreaking scientific magazine has the courage to reveal the bleeding edge of scientific discovery as written in a non-peer reviewed opinion essay delivered by ‘the editorial staff”! WOW! I wonder how old THEY think the earth is, hunh?
Oh thank the FSM!!!! SaveFarris hasn’t posted one of his doesn’t-live-up-to-the-billing links in a dog’s age. I thought he had given up.
Only a “science denier” would ignore new data.
Sheesh. Do you suppose our wingnut friends will ever be able to understand why “huh, the baseball game got snowed out!” is not an argument against long-term climate change?
Ferris, here is an explanation of why the phenomena your article mentions don’t really mean much in the broader scheme of things. I’m not sure you’ll be able to follow it, though: it’s written by a scientist rather than a political hack for IBD.
Many hurricanes = Global warming
Few hurricanes = Global warming
Cold = Global warming
Hot = Global warming
Rainy = Global warming
Dry = Global warming
2ndAmndmnt, I don’t follow you. Do you have any peer-reviewed scientific research to help explain your confusing assertions?
Yes I do. A lot of quotes from Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow, etc.
I think you’ve misunderstood, Indeed, those aren’t assertions those are mating calls.
To clear things up for the gun crazy wingnut:
Whole world temperature increased temperature = Global Warming
But I’m sure all that peer-reviewed scientific research is trumped by your inane feelings of superiority.
DeLong:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/10/four-defenders-of-dubner-and-levitt-superfreakonomicss-cllimate-chapter.html
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/10/does-superfreakonomics-need-a-do-over.html
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/10/william-connolley-on-superfreakonomics-global-cooling.html
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/10/six-questions-for-levitt-and-dubner-more-superfreakonomics-blogging.html
And even more over at his digs.
Moral: Do not post from iPhone and expect anything approaching coherence
Technically, it’s ‘increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses’, but I’m sure the Rapture will take care of that.
Go Team Jesus!
I think you’ve misunderstood, Indeed, those aren’t assertions those are mating calls.
Oh shit. Mike Judge was right. Our species is doomed.
I pray to Algore that I live to see my 38th Birthday!! Please help me Algore!! I will perish without the help of Algore!!!
I AM SOOOOOOOOOO HOT!!! MY Polar Bear died!!
Help me Algore! You’re my only hope!
2ndAmndmnt, where did you get your degree in climatology, or any hard science for that matter? I’d love to read some of the articles you’ve published on the subject.
I just wanna know how he got a polar bear.
I pray to Algore that I live to see my 38th Birthday!!
Hang in there, 2ndA, only 33 years to go!
I say, I’ve but a marvelous conceit! I shall behave most gauchely and with not but the utmost immaturity, all whilst maintaining the illusion, certain to deceive most everyone, that I support a theory maintained by the preponderance of the relevant scientific community, when in reality, I Do Not Agree With Such Pedagogy In The Slightest!! Oh such a rapscallion am I, certain to win numerous sexual favors from my peers!
All I can say is if you refuse to acknowledge that there is some controversy in this area, and that all the data is not in, you are far more close minded than you claim conservatives are.
And, yes, you are acting like religious zealots.
All I can say is if you refuse to acknowledge that there is significant consensus in this area, and that reams of significant data has been collected, you are far more close minded than you claim anyone-who-isn’t-you is.
And, yes, you are acting like a twit.
“Oh tut-tut, for there is always a theoretical piece of Data which I have no way to define that could potentially disprove the central point which has the present acceptance of the vast preponderance of the scientific community, and after all, for as long as there greater-than-zero people who refuse to agree with the evidence then there’s a Controversy, and if you refuse to acknowledge it then you’re close-minded, which is much worse than me simply being lazy and wrong.” My goodness but what a well thought out argument, oh yes.
Do you pull the same ACKNOWLEDGE THE CONTROVERSY DAMMIT nonsense with vaccinations? The Holocaust? Evolution? Your Mother being a filthy whore? Oh yes, of course you don’t think she is, but I have my reasons to suspect otherwise, and All I can say is if you refuse to acknowledge that there is some controversy in this area, and that all the data is not in, you are far more close minded than you happily claim we are while masturbating furiously at your own genius.
And, yes, I’m acting like a child. Doesn’t make my point wrong, but feel free to focus on my tone instead of my substance if that makes you feel better.
All I can say is if you refuse to acknowledge that there is some controversy in this area, and that all the data is not in, you are far more close minded than you claim conservatives are.
And, yes, you are acting like religious zealots.
Wrong again, Frank. What you’re doing is taking partisan advantage of the fact that science is not a closed-minded and dogmatic system (though individual scientists may be closed minded and dogmatic). Science will always be open to doubt and reevaluation in the light of new evidence.
The trouble is, at some point science has to be translated into public policy, which requires decisive action in the face of threats. Oftentimes we can’t wait for 100% certainty before acting.
Why is it that when it comes to much smaller threats to our civilization – such as whether a certain mideast tinpot is engaging WMD program related activities – you’re willing to accept a much lower standard of proof? Is it that you don’t realize the enormity of the threat to just about every part of the planet if the vast majority of climatological scientists turn out to be right?
And by “science” you mean “liberal policy”.
I have news for you, Nature is not a liberal. This may shock you, but the natural world does not conform to liberal expectations, and physical reality is not designed to promote liberal policy goals.
Oliver, your pop up ads are out of control.
Make them heel!
For the vast majority of global warming proponents it is something they don’t actually understand, hasn’t been proven and taken as an article of faith. Much like religion.
The data collection devices are inadequately spread throughout the world, that is undisputed. The computer models don’t work and have failed miserably at predicting actual weather patterns, that is undisputed. For much of the work being done, the conclusion comes first and the data is aligned to follow the funding. Many of the scientific voices we hear are loud advocates first and scientists second, again following the funding or their own poitical agendas. The ostracization of those who dissent is unprecedented in it’s viciousness and quite chilling towards honest research.
Global climate has never been stable and has changed much more swiftly in the past. LOL, the Scandihoovians starved out of the first european settlements in the New World because the climate changed so abruptly. The model for climate change following sunspot activity does work and does make predictions with a far greater degree of accuracy then the co2 models.
Even the serious proponents of climate change admit the solutions proposed won’t change the actual temperatures. The people charged with public policy implementation most certainly do not understand much of the science involved and the ramifications of the policies they advocate. Their interest is centered around the appearence of a solution under their leadership and the accumulation of more power. Look no further than our own Al Gore, his cinematic masterpiece of ecological propaganda is filled with undisputed falsehoods.
Lastly, while not proof of anything, I have much more to lose from global warming than most of you. I live on the salt within 15 feet of the waters edge and less than a foot above the high high water mark. The seas are not rising here, if they do I’ll be among the first to be displaced. Neither I nor my insurance company are worried about it.
Amused Observer, I couldn’t help but note with a chuckle your peer-reviewed-scientific-research-free assertions. Could you please link to some peer-reviewed scientists which support your claims? It might help bolster your case. I, and I suspect many other reality-based people, tend to put more faith in established Science than anonymous wingnut bloggers. Just trying to help.
DougJ at Balloon Juice weighs in:
Indeed.
J-Quigg at Crooked Timber:
http://crookedtimber.org/2009/10/18/the-importance-of-being-earnest-how-superfreakonomics-killed-contrarianism/
http://leftasanexercise.simulating-reality.com/?p=90
http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/12/superfreakonomics-errors-levitt-caldeira-myhrvold/ (first of several long posts, complete with Teh Science and everything).
I’m sure our high-brow scientist Wingnut Trolls will appreciate.
Google is your friend Indeed.
weather buoys/global distribution
computer climate models
sunspot activity
global warming controvrsy
Vinland
Icelandic sagas
Eric the Red
etc.
That reality based thing is rather precious, all things considered.
Google is your friend Indeed.
But not yours, apparently. Peer-reviewed science at your convenience. Thanks in advance!
A Nobel laureate, tenured professor of economics at an ivy league university:
Lots more at:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/superfreakingmeta/
One of the authors was on NPR recently, and, at the end of an interview in which he’d talked about the danger of unintended consequences, advocated pumping massive amounts of sulfur into the atmosphere to cool the planet. Surely, there won’t be any unintended consequences to a massive geoengineering project, eh?
As if he’d never heard of acid rain, or thought fragile ecosystems in the polar regions would love tons of acid snow.
The scientific, law, intelligence, academic, entertainment, medical, media, political and pro football professions have been infected by the liberal swine virus. Our last bastion of hope now lies with these few heroic and proud defenders of corporate freedom and liberty. We salute you, ODub trolls!
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/global-warming-in-superfreakonomics-the-anatomy-of-a-smear/
Remember the posts here where right-wing blogs jump on a silly meme and run with it, before checking things out? That’s a good general rule, not a partisan issue.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/global-warming-in-superfreakonomics-the-anatomy-of-a-smear/
Remember the posts here where right-wing blogs jump on a silly meme and run with it, before checking things out? That’s a good general rule, not a partisan issue.
Indeed, that is one way to spin it.
Well, if their goal really was to push “science-denying horse puckey”, why would they then deny their goal? That would be self-defeating. Logic is on the authors’ side here.
Well, if their goal really was to push “science-denying horse puckey”, why would they then deny their goal? That would be self-defeating. Logic is on the authors’ side here.
And that’s one way to spin it. Still.
Nate Silver:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/geoengineering-is-no-free-lunch-comment.html
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=28449
moneyshot: