The post in question was an assemblage of links to reviews of the book; the deleted comments were an assemblage of links to reviews of the book.

No takers, so I’ve asked; will report back the answer or lack thereof.

I would say this insanity from Dubner, a @#$#$#@ing JOURNALIST (which is, more or less, my profession as well, and is, obviously, Kolbert’s) leaning on the expertise of a !$@#$!@#ing Chicago School Economist (which is like a Discovery Institute Biologist), brings in the last needed data to say that fundamentalist marketism is the big issue in the US at least, and everything else is window dressing.

Dubner is no more educationally qualified than Kolbert – I assume even someone in the grips of a cult fervor like he is will grudgingly admit that? Hence, he relies on a bunch of largely discredited economists – the EXACT people who bankrupted Orange County, nearly bankrupted California, and DID bankrupt the ENTIRE NATION OF ICELAND. And the EXACT people who have led the global economy over a cliff. They don’t even know what they’re talking about in their own field, and Dubner thinks they’re a one-stop-shopping center for every science touching on climate. Meanwhile, Kolbert relies on tens of thousands of scientists via the IPCC, and thousands more via publications accessible to the public of peer reviewed and usually replicated or confirmed research.

I am not sure how far these guys can be discredited, but I don’t think they’ve hit bottom yet. If Michael Crichton had lived, I think he’d be completely embattled by this point, and considered a right-wing crank on anything climate-related. Levitt and Dubner are headed for a Cannae.

[JR: Too good not to repost.]

Paul, do you have screenshots, or did you save the text?

Here are screenshots of some of my comments they deleted – which linked to, or excerpted from, critical reviews. The “link” comments were pretty simple – e.g. “Don’t miss Elizabeth Kolbert’s SuperFreakonomics review in the New Yorker (link); as Krugman says, it’s a superfreakingly brilliant review.”

Perhaps someone who Clark Hoyt responds to, could ask him to inform us on NYTimes blog comment moderation policies?

Anyone who disagrees with them, is accused of semi-religious fervor who can’t consider anything but the gospel they believe in. I now don’t see Dubner or Levitt capable of understanding the criticism from knowledgeable critics.

I simply can’t see how their response to well intentioned criticism is consistent with their own philosophy espousing critical thinking and they way they dress themselves up as contrary thinkers. If others point out fallacies in their logic and argument, then Dubner and Levitt brand these rebels as religious zealots. I think Kolbert nailed these guys accurately in the last paragraph of her review.

Google comes through again.