Super Freakonomics In Global Warming Hot Water

7:33 pm EST October 17th, 2009 | News | 44 Comments

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.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

44 Responses to “Super Freakonomics In Global Warming Hot Water”

  1. jr says:
    October 17, 2009 at 8:37 pm

    George Willism isn’t cool

  2. Amused Observer says:
    October 17, 2009 at 8:59 pm

    I’m quite surprised that Oliver would be comfortable with Freakonomics.

  3. Rheinhard says:
    October 17, 2009 at 9:34 pm

    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!

  4. SaveFarris says:
    October 17, 2009 at 11:14 pm

    Only a “science denier” would ignore new data.

  5. Matt Osborne says:
    October 17, 2009 at 11:24 pm

    Paul Krugman did a great takedown on the lack of scholarship.

  6. Crusty Dem says:
    October 17, 2009 at 11:51 pm

    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.

  7. abanterer says:
    October 17, 2009 at 11:56 pm

    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?

  8. calling all toasters says:
    October 18, 2009 at 12:09 am

    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.

  9. Wilbur says:
    October 18, 2009 at 12:28 am

    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.

  10. 2ndAmndmnt says:
    October 18, 2009 at 12:49 am

    Many hurricanes = Global warming
    Few hurricanes = Global warming
    Cold = Global warming
    Hot = Global warming
    Rainy = Global warming
    Dry = Global warming

  11. Indeed says:
    October 18, 2009 at 12:58 am

    2ndAmndmnt, I don’t follow you. Do you have any peer-reviewed scientific research to help explain your confusing assertions?

  12. 2ndAmndmnt says:
    October 18, 2009 at 1:02 am

    Yes I do. A lot of quotes from Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Rachel Maddow, etc.

  13. Wilbur says:
    October 18, 2009 at 1:13 am

    I think you’ve misunderstood, Indeed, those aren’t assertions those are mating calls.

  14. Crusty Dem says:
    October 18, 2009 at 1:28 am

    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.

  15. Indeed says:
    October 18, 2009 at 1:31 am

    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.

  16. Crusty Dem says:
    October 18, 2009 at 1:32 am

    Moral: Do not post from iPhone and expect anything approaching coherence

  17. abanterer says:
    October 18, 2009 at 1:32 am

    Technically, it’s ‘increased concentrations of greenhouse gasses’, but I’m sure the Rapture will take care of that.

    Go Team Jesus!

  18. Indeed says:
    October 18, 2009 at 1:36 am

    I think you’ve misunderstood, Indeed, those aren’t assertions those are mating calls.

    Oh shit. Mike Judge was right. Our species is doomed.

  19. 2ndAmndmnt says:
    October 18, 2009 at 1:36 am

    I pray to Algore that I live to see my 38th Birthday!! Please help me Algore!! I will perish without the help of Algore!!!

  20. 2ndAmndmnt says:
    October 18, 2009 at 2:04 am

    I AM SOOOOOOOOOO HOT!!! MY Polar Bear died!!
    Help me Algore! You’re my only hope!

  21. Jaim says:
    October 18, 2009 at 2:31 am

    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.

  22. abanterer says:
    October 18, 2009 at 2:34 am

    I just wanna know how he got a polar bear.

  23. Wilbur says:
    October 18, 2009 at 2:55 am

    I pray to Algore that I live to see my 38th Birthday!!

    Hang in there, 2ndA, only 33 years to go!

  24. Rex Mundane says:
    October 18, 2009 at 7:15 am

    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!

  25. Frank DiSalle says:
    October 18, 2009 at 7:30 am

    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.

  26. Rex Mundane says:
    October 18, 2009 at 8:13 am

    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.

  27. Wilbur says:
    October 18, 2009 at 9:14 am

    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?

  28. anon says:
    October 18, 2009 at 12:27 pm

    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.

  29. Burn says:
    October 18, 2009 at 1:26 pm

    Oliver, your pop up ads are out of control.
    Make them heel!

  30. Amused Observer says:
    October 18, 2009 at 1:51 pm

    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.

  31. Indeed says:
    October 18, 2009 at 2:08 pm

    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.

  32. Indeed says:
    October 18, 2009 at 2:11 pm

    DougJ at Balloon Juice weighs in:

    There is nothing in this world that I hate more than contrarianism. Say what you will about Villagers, but their predictive powers are probably only marginally worse than those of a coin flip. The predictions Mickey Kaus makes are always wrong. I defy any of you to name a single thing that Mickey Kaus predicted that actually happened.

    And that’s why I’ve always hated the guys who wrote Freakonomics. It seemed to me they were lending an undeserved intellectual respectability to the most childish of pursuits. So I was glad to see their new book get torched by Matt Yglesias and others:

    As misleading as the Superfreakonomics chapter on climate change seemed to me yesterday, the email that Steven Dubner sent to Brad DeLong really compounds the sin. Dubner whines that Joe Romm “makes it sound as if we somehow twisted and abused Caldeira’s research; nothing could be further from the truth.”

    [....]

    Of course it’s possible that the UCS is mistaken about some matters. And it’s possible that Ken Caldeira is mistaken about some things. But it’s not possible that Levitt and Dubner are correctly representing the views of Caldeira or climate scientists in general. Nor is it possible that Levitt and Dubner are correct when they assert that photovoltaic cells are black (they’re usually blue) nor is it correct to say that black PV cells lead to net increases in global temperature. These mistakes. A mixture of bad science and bad reportage on a crucial public policy issue, done by a writing duo who became famous for clever statistical analysis of trivial matters.

    Of course, none of this will prevent George Will, David Brooks, and Ross Douthat from claiming that these jackasses have thoroughly debunked modern climate science.

    Update. More from Krugman:

    Levitt now says that the chapter wasn’t meant to lend credibility to global warming denial — but when you open your chapter by giving major play to the false claim that scientists used to predict global cooling, you have in effect taken the denier side. The only way I can reconcile what Levitt says now with that reality is that he and Dubner didn’t do their homework — not only that they didn’t check out the global cooling stuff, the stuff about solar panels, and all the other errors people have been pointing out, but that they didn’t even look into the debate sufficiently to realize what company they were placing themselves in.

    And that’s not acceptable. This is a serious issue. We’re not talking about the ethics of sumo wrestling here; we’re talking, quite possibly, about the fate of civilization. It’s not a place to play snarky, contrarian games.

    Indeed.

  33. Indeed says:
    October 18, 2009 at 2:54 pm

    J-Quigg at Crooked Timber:

    The main point, though, is that the fuss over the global cooling chapter in Levitt and Dubner’s new book is the first occasion, I think, where the refutation of specific errors has taken a back seat (partly because, in this case, it’s so easy) to an attack on contrarianism, as such. The general point is that contrarianism is a cheap way of allowing ideological hacks to think of themselves as fearless, independent thinkers, while never thinking (in fact reinforcing) the status quo. Here’s Krugman and Joe Romm, for example

    I can certainly remember that I was once positively disposed to contrarianism. Trawling through the blog records, I can find

    * A mixed review of Christopher Hitchens (on our side then), Letters to a Young Contrarian. If memory serves, I had a more favorable view of contrarianism, and Hitchens, before reading the book than after.

    * A reference to “The worst kind of contrarian: That is, one who makes great play with contradictions in the conventional wisdom, does not put forward a coherent alternative, but nonetheless makes authoritative-sounding pronouncements on public policy.”

    * A diagnosis of Richard Lindzen as someone who is “just an irresponsible contrarian as a matter of temperament. ”

    To sum up my current view: “contrarianism” is mostly contrary to reality, the “conventional wisdom” is probably wiser than the typical unconventional alternative, and “politically incorrect” views are almost always incorrect in every way: literally, scientifically and morally.

    http://crookedtimber.org/2009/10/18/the-importance-of-being-earnest-how-superfreakonomics-killed-contrarianism/

  34. Indeed says:
    October 18, 2009 at 3:07 pm

    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.

  35. Amused Observer says:
    October 18, 2009 at 4:01 pm

    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.

  36. Indeed says:
    October 18, 2009 at 4:06 pm

    Google is your friend Indeed.

    But not yours, apparently. Peer-reviewed science at your convenience. Thanks in advance!

  37. Indeed says:
    October 18, 2009 at 8:37 pm

    A Nobel laureate, tenured professor of economics at an ivy league university:

    Anyway, say this for Dubner and Levitt — they’ve provoked an interesting discussion, although probably not the one they hoped for.

    Lots more at:
    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/superfreakingmeta/

  38. biggerbox says:
    October 18, 2009 at 11:09 pm

    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.

  39. timmy says:
    October 18, 2009 at 11:51 pm

    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!

  40. Buzz Killington says:
    October 19, 2009 at 10:04 am

    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.

  41. Indeed says:
    October 19, 2009 at 10:33 am

    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.

  42. Buzz Killington says:
    October 19, 2009 at 10:43 am

    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.

  43. Indeed says:
    October 19, 2009 at 12:39 pm

    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

  44. Indeed says:
    October 19, 2009 at 10:12 pm

    http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=28449

    moneyshot:

    The dishonesty of all this is amazing. Brooks eats at a few chain restaurants in lieu of doing actual research; and then when he can’t milk enough meaning out of the baby-back ribs and Jack Daniels chicken, he just starts making things up. What Levitt/Dubner do, I’m afraid, isn’t so different. Levitt admits he does “economics of pimping” type stuff because it’s so difficult to get ahead going traditional research. And then, not content with that, he has to lie in order to sex up his already lightweight, sexed up book.

    It’s pathetic.