BPSDBA week ago Joseph Romm fired the opening salvo in what became a hail of criticism of the forthcoming book “Superfreakonomics” by Levitt and Dubner, particularly the climate change chapter which had been circulating on the web (albeit probably illicitly). Now the authors have begun to reply to their critics, or at least put out what they claim is a reply … or as Only in it for the Gold put it “The authors, Dubner and Levitt, are busily jumping the shark …”
I was late in making it to the freak show and had not actually read any of the critiques when the authors began to reply. As such I thought it would be interesting to discuss their reply rather than the climate chapter itself, particularly given the rather thorough treatment it has been getting (below). Thus I have read the critiques and the relevant parts of the book only after Levitt or Dubner framed it first.
Levitt begins his defense in The Rumors of Our Global-Warming Denial Are Greatly Exaggerated by emphasizing that the book “isn’t even on sale yet“, that critics are attacking it “before they’d even read the book“, “attacks on our chapter about global warming are already underway“, and “The bottom line is that the foundation of these attacks is essentially fraudulent.” Sure sounds like a reasonable point to make in their defense, that the critiques are uninformed and speculative … except of course it’s totally disingenuous.
The climate change chapter has been circulating on the web and the criticisms 
are clearly based on it, in most cases using direct quotes and page references. To suggest (without explicitly stating it) that people have not read the work is transparently false, albeit a technique the authors seem to favour.
Further, while the book itself may not be out, the authors have been going around doing interviews with titles like “Superfreakonomics: Everything you know about Global Warming is wrong” where they are said to be claiming a number of patently outrageous things such as CO2 not being the main culprit and implying that the most recent post-peak cooler phase is somehow more significant than every other one that has followed a peak year.
Levitt’s answer? ‘We are not climate change Deniers!’ Ummm, hate to tell you, but that’s not a response to specific criticisms. In fact it dodges them completely while pretending to having somehow addressed them, as if by that statement we are to understand they accept the very scientific facts that they are implying are wrong.
All told this initial retort is no more than a promise to thoroughly address the critics later while dodging the real questions and giving incomplete and out of context information. Not a promising start.
The follow-up Global Warming in SuperFreakonomics: The Anatomy of a Smear by Dubner continues where Levitt left off, in style and substance (or rather, lack of it) at least. The section “What we actually say in the book” does just that, restate certain points from the book that by and large do not address the specific criticisms, but instead simply talk around them.
Specific rebuttals are even worse. Debner says “If someone interprets our brief mention of the global-cooling scare of the 1970’s as an assertion of “a scientific consensus that the planet was cooling,” that feels like a willful misreading.”
I call bullshit. Reading the chapter in question (yes, I managed to get a copy, which I am happily deleting once this piece is done) there is no way a naive reader would interpret what they write as anything but suggesting that there had been a consensus on global cooling in the 1970s, even though the authors do not explicitly say so in so many words.
In what is typical Denier fashion they begin with some media anecdotes about global cooling and then state “what these scientists were talking about.” Not “a few” or “some” scientists, but an indeterminate “these scientists.” Yes, it is strictly true that the statement is referring only to those referenced earlier, but in the absence of any qualifiers or clarifications one is left with the impression that “these scientists” is somehow representative of broader opinion.
A few paragraphs later we learn that “These days, of course, the threat is the 
opposite” (pg 166) without any qualification about the difference between the science then and now. The authors are clearly juxtaposing and equating the fringe, speculative 1970s global cooling science with the current evidence based consensus on anthropogenic climate change. It does not take a deliberate misreading to arrive at this conclusion. The authors are clearly being deliberately obtuse while leaving room for the plausible deniability that Dubner is disingenuously invoking.
And on it goes;
Criticism, ‘the views of Caldeira have been misrepresented’
Response, “we asked Myhrvold, Caldeira, Wood, and others to review the first draft of our chapter and give us any and all feedback and corrections. We incorporated many of their suggestions into our next draft”
Again they are dodging the question; that is not a response to the criticism even though it is pretending to be. Did you misrepresent Caldeira or not? provide evidence!
Now it is true that the bulk of the chapter is about how to respond to climate change, and Levitt and others have more or less argued that ‘so what does it matter if there are some minor errors in the lead up.’ Well:
- the errors aren’t minor;
- How you define a problem dictates the possible answers;
- show it if they’re really inconsequential, then own them and move on;
- what does it tell us about the quality of your work, including the promotion of geo-engineering?
Speaking of #4, Levitt and Dubner put a great deal of effort into arguing that we know too little about climate science to know what is really going on, and then turn around and suggest that we know enough to start seriously messing with the system.
“And it’s strange, given how much is made in both Freakonomics books of the law of unintended consequences, that they don’t mention this in the context of Myhrvold’s plan.”
Of course the “stratoshield” proposal they advocate has many potential problems, not the least of them that it is not a solution but rather an amelioration of one of the symptoms (ie heat) and does not address for eg ocean acidification at all. For more see:
- Why Levitt and Dubner like geo-engineering and why they are wrong
- The Geoengineering Quandary (In Living Color)
As for the rest, I think Stoat‘s summary describes it very well:
“Diagnosis, in brief: (1) they write about stuff they clearly don’t understand (2) they pick a catchy reverse-common-wisdom nugget as a headliner without the having the slightest interest in whether it is true or not (mind you, plenty of more respectable folk do the same) (3) they pick an expert to talk to, but since they don’t have a clue about the subject they don’t know how to pick a good expert, or even understand what the expert says (4) there is a grain of sense in there, but so badly wrapped in trash it is nearly unfindable.”
To be fair I really should critically examine each of the author’s points 
independently to determine their truth, but at this point I have lost hope that the rest will be any different.
They had a chance to establish their credibility by providing credible refutations where they could, or by acknowledging error when they could not.
Instead they have opted for a Nixonian “I am not a Denier” strategy and, at least in my eyes, have thoroughly discredited themselves. John Quiggin sums it up nicely …
“The general point is that contrarianism is a cheap way of allowing ideological hacks to think of themselves as fearless, independent thinkers, while never thinking (in fact reinforcing) the status quo.”
UPDATE Oct 21 : Deltoid isn’t very impressed with the Freaks rebuttal either;
Underwhelming response from Superfreakonomics authors
As per the discussion in the comments below, Left as an Exercise is going to keep updating links on this story, so with rare exceptions I will not be and instead refer you to FAIL: Superfreakonomics.
The Hailstorm
Romm
- Error-riddled ‘Superfreakonomics’: New book pushes global cooling myths, sheer illogic, and “patent nonsense” — and the primary climatologist it relies on, Ken Caldeira, says “it is an inaccurate portrayal of me” and “misleading” in “many” places.
- 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?
- Error-riddled ‘Superfreakonomics’, Part 3: It takes a village to debunk their anti-scientific nonsense, but why did they stop Amazon from allowing text searches?
- Error-riddled Superfreakonomics, Part 4: They get the economics dead wrong, too, and their response to critics is full of misrepresentations, just like their book
- 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.”
- Anatomy of a debunking: Caldeira says Superfreakonomics is “damaging to me because it is an inaccurate portrayal of me” and filled with “many” misleading statements. Dubner continues to make false statements, parroted by Pielke and Morano. DeLong urges authors to “abjectly apologize” for the chapter.
Some Others
- Superfreakingmeta
- Paul Krugman Goes Meta
- Why Everything in Superfreakonomics About Global Warming Is Wrong
New Book “SuperFreakonomics” Mischaracterizes Climate Science - Superfreakonomics and the glory of contrarianism
- SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling (and some other stuff)?
- SuperFreakonomics Gets Climate Change Super Freaking Wrong
- Superfreakonomics Will Misinform Readers on Climate Science
- Superfreakonomics on climate, part 1
- Romm vs Freakshow II
- The Shoddy Statistics of Super Freakonomics
- Levitt and Dubner Disarm Themselves in Their Battle of Wits with Joe Romm…
- *Sigh* Last Post on Superfreakonomics, I Promise
- Six Questions for Levitt and Dubner (More Superfreakonomics Blogging)
- All Right. One More. I Gotta Correct the Record…
- Journalistic Malpractice From Leavitt and Dubner
- My review of Freakonomics 2
- Freakonomics update
- Expertise, and “expertise”
Compilations
- FAIL: Superfreakonomics
- Super Freaks of the Economics Profession
- The SuperFreakonomics Debacle: An Overview
- Superfreakonomics: It’s getting hot in here
“Since 1982, spring in East Asia (defined here as the eastern third of China and the Korean Peninsula) has been warming at a rate of one degree Fahrenheit per decade.” Earth Gauge
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 358 … still no evidence.
IMAGE CREDITS:
“The Freak Show 1” by Tammy Manet
“The Freak Show 2” by Tammy Manet
“The Freak Show 3” by Tammy Manet
“The Freak Show 4” by Tammy Manet
“The Freak Show 5” by Tammy Manet
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
- The “Mostly” Open Thread is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
- The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
Greenfyre's 
I’ve been compiling as much of the criticism as possible, and I’m working on incorporating their defenses as well (thanks for the link, btw) [1] – and I can soundly say that this is the best coverage of the issue I’ve seen. [2]
For the record, “Nixonian” is the best possible description of their defense tactic so far. [3] I’ve been waiting all weekend for a word that matches it this precisely. Their exact phrase, “The critics are implying that we dismiss any threats from global warming”, is in response to specific claims, such as “this quote, page 187, explicitly says temperatures have been falling” or “your scientific source contradicts your claims, suggesting misrepresentation.”
Mssrs. Levitt and Dubner, why didn’t you burn the tapes?
—-
Oh, I also forgot to mention: Every time they have to refer to the Union of Concerned Scientists (best known for its effort to defend scientific integrity from misrepresentation and interference during the Bush years), Levitt and Dubner link to them… but always and only refer to them as “a well-known environmental advocacy group”. People who do not follow links are left with the impression that “the hippies at Greenpeace are frothing at the mouth again” or something related. They do similar things for talking about Romm, a physics PhD and energy policy wonk with direct DoE experience, as a “prominent environmental blogger”, except they do actually name him occasionally (though never with the link present).
Talk about a smear? This is textbook Nisbettian-style (or Rovian, if you prefer) framing, even before you get to the whole “shrill” tactic.
—-
“Not that it necessarily demonstrates that they are wrong, but it does mean you have to double check everything they say, in which case why read them in the first place?”
which is where the division between politics and science might be made, since if a truth (reproducible by numbers, that is, scientific method) is abandoned (for a lie to aquire an advantage), there is no need to assume the sayers are in touch with reality. I’m sorry to hear about your computer problems.
is it a ‘living’ post? ie you will keep adding to it? There may/should be renewed interest once the book is actually released…
Yes, it’s living. I’ve updated it just this morning with a link to this post, amongst others. (There’s a handful of links I accidentally left on my home computer and won’t be able to add until tonight, mostly on the defense of Superfreakonomics, so expect at least one more update tonight.)
It’s also a learning experience: I’m used to the climate blogosphere and have a grasp on how big it is, but it’s peanuts in size compared to the economics blogosphere I’m discovering by hunting all of these down. It’s interesting to note that a common complaint in the comment threads (but not in the actual posts…) is that Freakonomics is often just Chicago-school economics, which Krugman eviscerated not long ago. (Unsurprisingly, then, as now with Superfreakonomics and further in the past with the Bush tax cuts, the most common debunking of Krugman amounts to “he’s shrill”. One of the money quotes I’ve found on the debunkings is from Scott Lemieux: “When you say that your critics are shrill rather than explaining why they’re wrong, it’s a pretty clear sign that you’ve got nothing.”
(Btw, your inline in comment 1 has a [3], but no corresponding footnote.) [1]
—–
[…] Kaulbars: Superfreakonomic Expialidocious: I Did Not Deny Climate Change With That Woman Editor’s note: This is my favorite summary of events so far, although (or perhaps because) it […]
Here’s a summary of some of the environmental threats to our oceans. The way things are going, there could be no fish left in the oceans in as little as 40 years.
http://selfdestructivebastards.blogspot.com/2009/10/our-oceans-are-dying.html
—–
http://economics.com.au/?p=4496
Joshua Gans
“But come on. Isn’t the whole point of the Freakonomics project that prices work and behaviour changes in response to incentives? Everywhere else, a few pennies will cause massive consumption changes while when it comes to a carbon price, it is all too hard. ”
“And there is another missing bit of economics. It is stated but again ‘left there’ but one concern about geoengineering is that it might be a license to pollute. No guilt or concern about future carbon prices holding anything back. Again, that is not explored but it is an issue capable of economic analysis and it is a gap here that they do not consider it. That is disappointing.”
http://crookedtimber.org/2009/10/18/the-importance-of-being-earnest-how-superfreakonomics-killed-contrarianism/
John Quiggin
“To sum up my current view: “contrarianism” is mostly contrary to reality, the “conventional wisdom” is probably wiser than the typical unconventional alternative, and “politically incorrect” views are almost always incorrect in every way: literally, scientifically and morally.”
Boy this book is coping some flack. Even a fan considerd it entertainmant. “In the end, a book such as SuperFreakonomics stands or falls on its entertainment value. And on that count, there’s no doubt: it’s a page-turner.”http://timharford.com/2009/10/superfreakonomics-reviewed/
—-
[…] UPDATE (10/21): This is the best compilation of all sides against the issue. (here) […]
[…] (such as via the truthiness-laden pages of Superfreakonomics (see here and here and, well, tens of other sites/posts )), being a centerpiece of misrepresentations by George Will and others, Borenstein decided […]