SuperFreakonomics: Difference between revisions
→Global warming chapter: removed loaded term |
|||
| Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
The fifth chapter of the book about [[global warming]], ''What Do Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo Have in Common?'', proposes that the global climate can be regulated by [[geo-engineering]] of a [[stratoshield]] <ref>{{cite web|url=http://intellectualventureslab.com/?tag=stratoshield|title=Introducing the Stratoshield|date=2009-10-21|publisher=Intellectual Ventures}}</ref> based upon patented technology from [[Nathan Myhrvold]]'s company [[Intellectual Ventures]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2009/10/video_nathan_myhrvold_explains_how_to_save_the_world.html|title=Stratoshield: Nathan Myhrvold explains how to save the planet|author=Todd Bishop|publisher=TechFlash|date=2009-10-14}}</ref> |
The fifth chapter of the book about [[global warming]], ''What Do Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo Have in Common?'', proposes that the global climate can be regulated by [[geo-engineering]] of a [[stratoshield]] <ref>{{cite web|url=http://intellectualventureslab.com/?tag=stratoshield|title=Introducing the Stratoshield|date=2009-10-21|publisher=Intellectual Ventures}}</ref> based upon patented technology from [[Nathan Myhrvold]]'s company [[Intellectual Ventures]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2009/10/video_nathan_myhrvold_explains_how_to_save_the_world.html|title=Stratoshield: Nathan Myhrvold explains how to save the planet|author=Todd Bishop|publisher=TechFlash|date=2009-10-14}}</ref> |
||
The chapter has been criticized by some economists and climate science experts who say it contains |
The chapter has been criticized by some economists and climate science experts who say it contains misleading statements and discredited arguments, including this presentation of geoengineering as a replacement for CO<sub>2</sub> emissions reduction. Among the critics are [[Paul Krugman]]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/superfreakonomics-on-climate-part-1/ |title=Superfreakonomics on climate, part 1 |author=Paul Krugman |date=2009-10-17 |quote="they grossly misrepresent other peoples’ research, in both climate science and economics"}}</ref>, [[J. Bradford DeLong|Brad DeLong]]<ref>{{cite web |url=http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/10/yet-more-superfreakonomics-blogging-yes-i-know-i-know.html |title=Yet More Superfreakonomics Blogging. |author=Brad DeLong |date=2009-10-19 |work=Grasping Reality with All Eight Tentacles|quote=Levitt and Dubner today appear to no longer be thinking like economists}}</ref>, [[The Guardian]],<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/oct/19/superfreakonomics-geoengineering-wrong|title=Why Superfreakonomics' authors are wrong on geo-engineering|date=2009-10-19|quote=Many commentators have already pointed out dozens of misquotes, misrepresentations and mistakes in the 'Global Cooling' chapter}}</ref> and [[The Economist]].<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14738383|title=Freaking out: The controversy over SuperFreakonomics |date=2009-10-27|publisher=[[The Economist]]|accessdate=2009-11-06}}</ref> |
||
In response, Levitt and Dubner have stated on their ''[[Freakonomics]]'' blog that global warming is [[Anthropogenic | man-made]] and an important issue.<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|url=http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/the-rumors-of-our-global-warming-denial-are-greatly-exaggerated/|title=The Rumors of Our Global-Warming Denial Are Greatly Exaggerated|date=2009-10-17|quote="we believe that rising global temperatures are a man-made phenomenon and that global warming is an important issue to solve. Where we differ from the critics is in our view of the most effective solutions to this problem." and "The real purpose of the chapter is figuring out how to cool the Earth if indeed it becomes catastrophically warmer... if we weren’t convinced that global warming was worth worrying about, we wouldn’t have written a chapter about proposed solutions.}}</ref> |
In response, Levitt and Dubner have stated on their ''[[Freakonomics]]'' blog that global warming is [[Anthropogenic | man-made]] and an important issue.<ref>{{cite news|newspaper=[[The New York Times]]|url=http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/the-rumors-of-our-global-warming-denial-are-greatly-exaggerated/|title=The Rumors of Our Global-Warming Denial Are Greatly Exaggerated|date=2009-10-17|quote="we believe that rising global temperatures are a man-made phenomenon and that global warming is an important issue to solve. Where we differ from the critics is in our view of the most effective solutions to this problem." and "The real purpose of the chapter is figuring out how to cool the Earth if indeed it becomes catastrophically warmer... if we weren’t convinced that global warming was worth worrying about, we wouldn’t have written a chapter about proposed solutions.}}</ref> |
||
Revision as of 04:09, 7 December 2009
 | This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. (October 2009) |
 Cover | |
| Author | Steven D. Levitt, Stephen J. Dubner |
|---|---|
| Publisher | William Morrow |
Publication date | October 20, 2009 |
| Publication place | US |
| Media type | Hardcover |
| Pages | 288 |
| ISBN | 0060889578 |
| Preceded by | Freakonomics |
SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes, and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance is a non-fiction book by University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt and The New York Times journalist Stephen J. Dubner, released in early October 2009 in Europe and on October 20, 2009 in the United States[1]. It is a sequel to Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything .
Reception
Superfreakonomics has been praised for its entertainment value, but has drawn criticism for taking unconventional approaches to its subject matter, particularly global warming.
In the Financial Times, Tim Harford, author of The Undercover Economist, said that Superfreakonomics "is a lot like Freakonomics, but better."[2] In the New York Post, critic and novelist Kyle Smith described the book as "brave, bracing and beautifully contrarian."[3] BusinessWeek gave the book three and a half stars out of five, saying that the book is "[a]n inventive and even useful application of economics to unusual subjects."[4]
Global warming chapter
The fifth chapter of the book about global warming, What Do Al Gore and Mount Pinatubo Have in Common?, proposes that the global climate can be regulated by geo-engineering of a stratoshield [5] based upon patented technology from Nathan Myhrvold's company Intellectual Ventures.[6]
The chapter has been criticized by some economists and climate science experts who say it contains misleading statements and discredited arguments, including this presentation of geoengineering as a replacement for CO2 emissions reduction. Among the critics are Paul Krugman[7], Brad DeLong[8], The Guardian,[9] and The Economist.[10]
In response, Levitt and Dubner have stated on their Freakonomics blog that global warming is man-made and an important issue.[11]
Joseph Romm said that Superfreakonomics had seriously misrepresented the position of climate scientist Ken Caldeira[12]; the book says among other things, that Caldeira's research tells him CO2 is "not the right villain", an assertion Caldeira strongly disputes.[13] Caldeira has commented
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. That said, when I am speaking, I place these facts in a very different context and draw different policy conclusions.... I believe the authors to have worked in good faith. They draw different conclusions than I draw from the same facts, but as authors of the book, that is their prerogative.[14]
Dubner responded that with hindsight the line describing Ken Caldeira overstated his position, but stated that Caldeira had been sent a preview of the text and had approved it.[14]
Caldeira has acknowledged that he did receive the preview[14], but disagreed that the errors were his responsibility: "I feel no need to read, fact check, or make detailed comments on documents that arrive in my in-box. I have lots of other things to do, like trying to get my science out the door."[15] As it transpired, Dubner had been apprised of Caldeira's objection to the "right villain" assertion, but did not delete the line as Caldeira expected, although Caldeira believes this was due to a good faith misunderstanding.[16]
On October 29, 2009, U.S. Representative Jay Inslee (D-WA) criticized the authors of SuperFreakonomics for participating in a "continuing effort to deceive the American public" on the science of climate change.[17]
References
- ^ SuperFreakonomics Is Out Today, 2009-10-20
- ^ Harford, Tim (2009-10-17). "Superfreakonomics". Financial Times. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
- ^ Smith, Kyle (2009-10-18). "Superfreakonomics". New York Post. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
- ^ Coy, Peter (2009-10-22). "More Oddball Tales for Freakonomics Fans". BusinessWeek. Retrieved 2009-10-23.
- ^ "Introducing the Stratoshield". Intellectual Ventures. 2009-10-21.
- ^ Todd Bishop (2009-10-14). "Stratoshield: Nathan Myhrvold explains how to save the planet". TechFlash.
- ^ Paul Krugman (2009-10-17). "Superfreakonomics on climate, part 1".
they grossly misrepresent other peoples' research, in both climate science and economics
- ^ Brad DeLong (2009-10-19). "Yet More Superfreakonomics Blogging". Grasping Reality with All Eight Tentacles.
Levitt and Dubner today appear to no longer be thinking like economists
- ^ "Why Superfreakonomics' authors are wrong on geo-engineering". 2009-10-19.
Many commentators have already pointed out dozens of misquotes, misrepresentations and mistakes in the 'Global Cooling' chapter
- ^ "Freaking out: The controversy over SuperFreakonomics". The Economist. 2009-10-27. Retrieved 2009-11-06.
- ^ "The Rumors of Our Global-Warming Denial Are Greatly Exaggerated". The New York Times. 2009-10-17.
"we believe that rising global temperatures are a man-made phenomenon and that global warming is an important issue to solve. Where we differ from the critics is in our view of the most effective solutions to this problem." and "The real purpose of the chapter is figuring out how to cool the Earth if indeed it becomes catastrophically warmer... if we weren't convinced that global warming was worth worrying about, we wouldn't have written a chapter about proposed solutions.
- ^ Joe Romm (2009-10-19). "Anatomy of a debunking". climateprogress.org.
He [Caldeira] has responded to many e-mail queries of mine over the weekend. He simply doesn't believe what the Superfreaks make it seem like he believes...One sentence about Caldeira in particular is the exact opposite of what he believes (page 184): 'Yet his research tells him that carbon dioxide is not the right villain in this fight.' Levitt and Dubner didn't run this quote by Caldeira, and when he saw a version from Myhrvold, he objected to it.
- ^ Jeff Goodell (2009-10-21). "Geoengineering the Planet: The Possibilities and the Pitfalls (Caldeira interview)". Yale Environment 360. Retrieved 2009-10-22.
the actual statements attributed to me are based on fact, but the contexts and the framing of those issues are very different from the context and framing that I would put those same facts in...So I think that the casual reader can... come up with a misimpression of what I believe and what I feel about things.
- ^ a b c Stephen J. Dubner (2009-10-18). "Global Warming in SuperFreakonomics: The Anatomy of a Smear". The New York Times.
- ^ Joe Romm (2009-10-18). "Part 5: Error-riddled Superfreakonomics claims Caldeira's 'research tells him that carbon dioxide is not the right villain'. Caldeira updates his website to read 'Carbon dioxide is the right villain.'". climateprogress.org.
- ^ "Caldeira explains the "right villain" episode". 2009-10-25.
- ^ Johnson, Brad. http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/10/29/inslee-condemns-superfreaks/ "Inslee Slams Superfreaks",] The Wonk Room, October 29, 2009