Superfreakonomics and global warming

[ciphergoth]

I enjoyed Freakonomics, and I'm looking forward to reading the sequel, Superfreakonomics. However, be warned: it looks like everything you read in "Why Everything You Think You Know About Global Warming Is Wrong" is wrong.

• 10 egregious errors found by William M. Connolley
• 10 more egregious errors found by Tim Lambert

If you only have time for one example, look at the way they utterly misrepresent Ken Caldiera, leaving readers with an impression of his views diametrically opposed to the reality.

What they say he says:

Yet his research tells him that carbon dioxide is not the right villain in this fight.

What he actually believes:

"Carbon dioxide is the right villain," says Caldeira, "insofar as inanimate objects can be villains."

What he has to say about the misrepresentation:

If you talk all day, and somebody picks a half dozen quotes without providing context because they want to make a provocative and controversial chapter, there is not much you can do.

Global warming denialism is nothing more than an industry-funded front to slow acceptance of well-established science. Please don't let any of the nonsense that gets peddled about it lead you to think there is any real doubt about the danger we face.

Update: Levitt and Dubner have blogged in response to the criticism they've received.

“The only significant error,” [Calderia] wrote to Romm, “is the line: ‘carbon dioxide is not the right villain in this fight.’ That is just wrong and I never would have said it. On the other hand, I f&@?ed up. They sent me the draft and I approved it without reading it carefully and I just missed it. … I think everyone operated in good faith, and this was just a mistake that got by my inadequate editing.” [...]

“I believe all of the ideas attributed to me are based on fact, with the exception of the ‘carbon dioxide is not the right villain’ line,” he wrote. “That said, when I am speaking, I place these facts in a very different context and draw different policy conclusions.

They also say that the "global cooling" thing Connolley opens with is a drastic misrepresentation of the chapter. So that's two down, eighteen to go...

Update: Also interesting: Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate on Why Levitt and Dubner like geo-engineering and why they are wrong.

Comments

[ciphergoth.livejournal.com]

Sure, but I think Monbiot is only making a difference between falling for something when it's fresh off the presses, and falling for it when there is a large and well-established industry of writers and bloggers explaining in detail why it's nonsense.