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.

And that’s one way to spin it. Still.

Nate Silver:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/10/geoengineering-is-no-free-lunch-comment.html

Indeed, that is one way to spin it.

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.

As if he’d never heard of acid rain, or thought fragile ecosystems in the polar regions would love tons of acid snow.

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/

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

That reality based thing is rather precious, all things considered.

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.

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/

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.

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.

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.

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?

“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.