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

[djm4]

Thanks - I was trying to get enough information together to write about this (although I was more triggered by this naive and fact-selective piece on the BBC web site than by the SF lads' idiocy) but you seem to have done most of my work for me in finding those links - and the other pages they link to.

[purplerabbits.livejournal.com]

In addition to be an industry funded front, I think global warming has joined a number of other 'heretical' causes that people take up to show how edgy and anti-establishment they are, or something. I mean I don't think Freakonomics are funded to support it, I think they've been conned into thinking it makes them clever...

[mooism.livejournal.com]

Ironic.

The authors met when Dubner interviewed Levitt for a New York Times article. Levitt was pleasantly surprised when he read the resulting piece and found he wasn't misrepresented. This led to their collaboration on Freakonomics.

[hukuma.livejournal.com]

They made a blog post saying that they themselves are being attacked unfairly and are being misrepresented, but left out any details. I'd be interested in seeing if they can save their credibility, though I wouldn't put my money on them at this point.