Comments on: One error retracted, 99 to go. Superfreaknomics authors will, in future editions, correct their claim that Caldeira believes “carbon dioxide is not the right villain”

By: Leif

Leif — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 06:26:32 +0000

Gail: Thank you for the offer but save the carbon footprint of shipping and give to a worthy cause locally. Perhaps a local library. I am sure I can get a copy locally although I am fully committed.
There is a branch of the “fundamentalist Christians that are proponents of “Creation Care.” As an atheist it is still a stretch for me but in reality I care not what they call it as long as they take care of it. This branch was recently lead by Richard (cannot spell his last name but something like “Cizzex”) My wife works with his sister here at the local hospital so I will be able to get his name if need be. He was recently dethroned by the higher ups. That segment still is out there however and is a fairly large portion, if I remember the numbers right. It is however very difficult for them to accept the likes of us. What with our liberal views on abortion, etc. We do need to work with them or at least encourage them to be more vocal.

By: Gail

Gail — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 05:03:53 +0000

Leif, in the interest of saving trees, I will gladly snailmail you my copy of Gore’s new book as soon as I have finished reading it.

The science really is settled, as settled as science can be. The real question now is what to do about climate change – not whether it is occurring, or caused by humans.

Arguing with deniers about that is like arguing with fundamentalist Christians whether the earth was created 10,000 years ago, or billions. WASTE. OF. TIME.

By: Leif

Leif — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:51:21 +0000

Gail: I would love to move along without the tin-hats as well. Unfortunately we need their votes and, except for the Shrub Era, by in large a democracy.

By: Gail

Gail — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 04:27:47 +0000

Lou Grinzo, you may be on to something. I hadn’t been planning to buy Al Gore’s new book but it was given to me yesterday, and it’s really worthwhile reading.

It’s time to start ignoring blithering idiotic deniers and controversy feeding profiteers, and start concentrating on near-term solutions that will buy us enough time to sort out long term methods, to avert the worst effects of runaway tipping point crossings.

Perhaps we should stop wasting intellectual energy arguing with deniers, and just move along without them.

By: Lou Grinzo

Lou Grinzo — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:47:42 +0000

George: “The whole thing is complete sloppiness that will ultimately cost them their reputation except among the far right.”

And that outcome, if it happens, would constitute a resounding success for the superfreaks. Their goal is not to have a serious effect on public policy or private behavior, or even to have a “good” reputation in the traditional sense of that expression. It’s to make as big a pile of money as possible–that’s just plain economics. So if they become the Rush Limbaugh of economics and science writing–great! They’ll be laughed at, openly ridiculed, and they’ll also have all the book offers, interview requests, and speaking engagements they could want.

And the worst part of it is that we’re all helping them achieve their goal. That includes CP, my own writing on my blog, and everyone else screaming until their lungs bleed about what these two have said.

I hate to sound so cynical, but after reading so many comments by and about the superfreaks I really have come to believe that there’s no other explanation.

By: Anna Haynes

Anna Haynes — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 00:30:30 +0000

PaulK #11 (”One more post censored today [on NYT Freak blog]“), 4 things:
1) thanks for documenting this;
2) it’s not clear from this (#11) comment’s formatting, which part of it is a paste from your Freak comment;
3) for documentation’s sake, it’s good to provide a URL for the post you commented on;
4) also for doc’s sake, pictures are worth 1000 words – which is why I made screenshots showing my Freak comment being disappeared, & then posted them at my climate blog, at warming101.blogspot.com/2009/11/evidence-of-questionable.html

and fyi, I’ve been trying – so far, w/o success – to get Dubner to confirm or deny that he said something rather sly, namely: “The problem today is that people think that the global efforts made towards cutting carbon emissions mean they can go about their lives as normal, it’s almost an excuse for them to pollute.”

Any suggestions as to how many times & formats one should try, to ask him, before concluding by default that he’s standing by the quote?

(documented the effort here – http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/ 2009/ 11/ 04/ ken-caldeiras-carbon-solution/ #comment-515557 )

And last – does anyone know if Stephen Dubner is related to Jeffrey Dubner of Tapped, originator of the Dubner Oath; and if, well, we can ask Stephen if he’ll take it…

By: Edward

Edward — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 07:34:27 +0000

The day we named ourselves “Homo “Sapiens”", Hugh Briss was in town. Maybe if we each had a math coprocessor installed in our brains. This does not apply to RealClimate people or to ClimateProgress.

By: Gail

Gail — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 02:59:58 +0000

Interesting, Col, I hadn’t come across that analogy before. Here was my take on the watermelon: http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/ 2009/ 09/ we-are-all-watermelon-now.html

and you should see what I think about rhubarb! http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/ 2009/ 08/ you-cant-go-home-again.html

It’s a pity that ideology appears to trump science. Fantasy vs. fact. I wonder if your analysis of the cover is valid. It’s quite a tantalizing theory!

By: Col

Col — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 01:02:00 +0000

I’ve only read a couple of your posts on Superfreakonomics, so forgive me if you’ve already addressed this, but is that an exploding watermelon on the cover of the book? Admittedly it’s more orange than red in the middle and then there’s the stem. But I say this because some call greens watermelons thinking (wrongly) that they’re all green on the outside and red (communist) on the inside. Might that explain where they’re coming from and what they’re trying to do? If so, does that mean that the book was intentionally about smearing greens? (Exploding their ideas which they want to paint as myths).

By: George

George — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:53:23 +0000

I know this is a climate blog, but you should also be aware that they got almost everything else demonstrably wrong too. The drunk-walking chapter has three huge fallacies. First, it is per-mile, not per hour. Obviously in 20 minutes a driver might cover 10x the distance of a walker. second,they ignored the potential for harm to others. Third, drunk-walkers are drunker to begin with — that’s why they didn’t drive!

also, the carseats. They took 30 years of research. Well, 30 years ago we were only a few years removed from the Maggie Simpson-type carseats, safety seats then being in their first generation. The current generation is far safer than seat belts, duh.

The whole thing is complete sloppiness that will ultimately cost them their reputation except among the far right.