Comments on: Error-riddled ‘Superfreakonomics’, Part 2: Who else have Nathan Myhrvold and the Groupthinkers at Intellectual Ventures duped and confused? Would you believe Bill Gates and Warren Buffett?

By: Pan

Pan — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:28:42 +0000

@ mike roddy (#15)
Model references please. Your claim is … somewhat nonsensical. Are you saying that increased industrialization in Africa is not happening? This is blatantly untrue, so I hope not. Shrinking farmland makes small families both more desirable and more necessary, as well as leading to greater urbanization which leads to further industrialization. As for lack of capital precluding it, the money that the foundation spends in an attempt to reduce poverty may help combat said lack of capital by lifting some of the financial burden off the already over burdened state.
In short I agree with Dave (#11), that the work of the foundation may help reduce peak population (a very good thing). That is not to say the foundation has no faults, merely that it is not the source of all Evil. It is too easy sometimes to say ” Wicked, wicked rich people”

By: brendan

brendan — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 14:45:38 +0000

So much good response here, but a minor detail left out that struck me as immediate proof of the unthinking ‘contrarianism above all’ glib superficiality that the authors are promulgating as abalysis was the black solar cell stuff. First, of course not all, in fact few, solar cells are really black–usually they are blue and yes, this does make a difference as to their absorption or reflectance of heat-related red wavelengths.
Second, even a moment’s reflection reveals that most of these solar installations are installed on black or dark roofs, over parking lots, etc., in other words, they are covering territory that was already dark or otherwise absorbing (and re-radiating) heat. It is a rare installation that would be built over a green field or forest! or over someone’s lawn, for heaven’s sake.

and this gets to the most obvious and most stupid error of all: these things cast a shadow–whatever heat they absorb and re-reflect must be netted out against the shade they now provide for the previously-exposed-and-heated roof, ground, or whatever. so, the net increase in acreage absorbing and re-reflecting heat may, upon real examination rather than casual smart-guy cleverness, turn out to be zero, or even come out in favor of the shade-producing solar arrays.

[this last factor is not entirely trivial, either. if installed on or over a roof in a warm climate area--a sunny area like TX or CA or similar--where in fact solar installations are most popular--the solar installation will also help keep the house or building beneath somewhat cooler than otherwise, and therefore will lower AC bills just as surely, or more so, than would painting the roof white or silver. An unappreciated, but real, contribution of building-mounted solar to fighting global warming.]

this doesn’t even touch on the increasing fraction of solar installations that are concentrated reflector based, which as a rule cover much less territory per kw.
And in general, the more you look at Myrhvold’s stuff or at the Freakonomics glib ‘work’ in this area, the more and more ignorant they seem.

By: bill peppin

bill peppin — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 04:42:07 +0000

Said it before on chats like this, say it again. For all those who would dismiss global warming as the imagination of eco-terrorists, or whatever, consider simply this fact: scientific consensus strongly supports the proposition of man-caused global warming, occasioned by the sharp rise of CO2 in the atmosphere, such rise starting with the industrial revolution. 600,000 years of ice cores show that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere was in the range about 270 – 330 for all that time until the start, more or less, of the 18th century. The present level is 395 or so and rising rapidly. It is known, v. the planet Venus, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat that otherwise would escape to space. So what reasonable person would not say that we as a species must come together to address this issue? Are we so unconcerned with what will be left to our descendents, our own children and grandchildren, that we will actually just blow this off and do nothing? Probably so. The wider biosphere on this planet, who certainly do not love us, will not mourn our disappearance if things go wrong, then leading to wars with the terrible weapons we have built. Homo crapulens we are, not Homo sapiens.

By: Mike#22

Mike#22 — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:28:29 +0000

Is this patent vacuuming machine called Intellectual Ventures testing the waters on the “18-mile-long rubber hose pumping liquefied sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere.”

One problem that this humanitarian service would run into is the trillions(?) they would have to pay to all the various solar panel owners and manufactures for the lost revenue caused by increasing the planet’s reflectivity.

By: Greg Robie

Greg Robie — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 03:36:02 +0000

Add NPR’s Scott Simon to the list. See http://www.npr.org/ templates/ story/ story.php?storyId=113899727

By: Stu

Stu — Sun, 18 Oct 2009 10:57:35 +0000

It seems to make a difference in most things you need industry participation. Perhaps something like an umbrella organisation funded by ocean based industries would be the thing to look at ways of reducing carbon (maybe even directly funding renewable energy plants + later using the profit from those to build more).

By: Kate Cell

Kate Cell — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:51:31 +0000

The Union of Concerned Scientists (with whom I work) has a short, cogent discussion of the problems with this chapter at http://www.ucsusa.org/ global_warming/ science_and_impacts/ global_warming_contrarians/ book-superfreakonomics.html. Link to Joe’s analysis, too.

By: Jay Alt

Jay Alt — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 03:45:36 +0000

Gates and Buffett are predisposed to sail into the wind. That served them well in business and they can’t bear to abandon the tactic now despite the fact the whole world now needs everyone to pull together. I think the reply 14. Pavol has a good take on their mindsets. They are senior figures who want to feel helpful, but only inside their limited comfort zone.

I have a gift copy of Freakonomics that I never finished. The chapters didn’t seem integrated or relevant to much. The authors repeated burnishing of their own cleverness is tiresome.

By: colin crawford

colin crawford — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 02:31:32 +0000

I was relieved to see that coverage was given to the fact that SO2 injection into the upper atmosphere would not do anything to abate the decreasing pH of the oceans and the decimation of many (most?) of the creatures that live there. However, please correct me if I’m wrong, won’t SO2 eventually fall back to the ground as ‘acid-rain’? If so, wouldn’t a sufficiently massive infusion of SO2, as proposed by Myhrvold and his disciples, 1) negatively affect photosynthesis further reducing the carbon absorption of plant life thus increasing the rate of concentration of atmospheric and oceanic CO2 and 2) instigate massive plant damage (die-off?) from the resultant H2SO4 precipitation? I guess we now have better(?) insight into why ‘Windows’ is such a crappy OS!

By: RoySV

RoySV — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:53:15 +0000

The VC world is based on getting people hooked on ideas and concepts that benefit the hype-ster. Observed here, and in Steven Leeb’s case, etc: The validity, sensibility, accuracy of the claims is often not a factor. What’s needed is a compelling (usually contrarian) story that makes the clients/investors mouth water and convinces them that they are getting insight into the next “big thing”. It’s all about the pitch and the sizzle. The truth is left out unless it is profitable. Another example is Vinod Kosla.