BPSDB No, the Yes Men have not punked the Wall Street Journal, although you sure could be forgiven for thinking “Freaked Out Over SuperFreakonomics” is a DenialDepot post mocking how extremely braindead and fraudulent climate change Denierism can be.
There’s really nothing in Brett Stephen’s article to suggest that it’s supposed to be serious (cf Poe’s Law). Then again it’s not that surprising, Brett Stephens is definitely not “boldly going where he has never gone before.”
Stephens opens with 6 paragraphs of summary (more or less) of climate change as it appears in Superfreakonomics, liberally sprinkled with spurious cheap shots at Al Gore and all people who accept actual science and reason.
“Mr. Gore, for instance, tells Messrs. Levitt and Dubner that the stratospheric sulfur solution is “nuts.” “
- Gore said no such thing, Stephens is actually misquoting the book; it’s “people like Al Gore” think “it’s nuts“.
- Logical fallacy (mis)-attributing to Gore rather than acknowledging the fact that many scientists have serious, science based critiques of the idea
“Former Clinton administration official Joe Romm, who edits the Climate Progress blog, accuses the authors of “[pushing] global cooling myths” and “sheer illogic.“”
- pretends Romm’s facts based, well documented critiques are just “accusations”;
- spurious mention of Romm’s background … how does that change the truth of what Romm says?
- Equally neglects to mention that the critiques by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Krugman (see original) are also well documented and fact based
“In fact, Messrs. Levitt and Dubner show every sign of being careful researchers, going so far as to send chapter drafts to their interviewees for comment prior to publication.”
- While that shows a certain due diligence wrt to accuracy of the interviews conducted, it is not evidence of having done careful research. Then again, there is no evidence that Stephens actually understands what “research” is. He certainly hasn’t done any for this or any previous article on climate;
- This is not a substitute for actually refuting the critiques, but then since Stephens scrupulously tries to imply that the critiques were without substance he can hardly now admit that they did make points that require refuting or conceding.
“Nor are they global warming “deniers,” insofar as they acknowledge that temperatures have risen by 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit over the past century.”
- No one had accused them of ‘denying climate change’; it was Levitt who first pretended that they had as a way of evading responding to the real criticisms. Their critics merely documented at length and in detail the numerous glaring errors, false claims, and outright fabrications in the work;
- “not challenging” means nothing when you then indulge in all of the distortions and fabrications noted in 1.) cf ’some of my best friends …’
- ”not challenging” is a totally disingenuous claim to avoid taking responsibility for the things mentioned in i) as discussed in “Superfreakonomic-expialidocious “I did not deny climate change with that woman!” ”
They should either refute the criticisms with credible science or acknowledge their many egregious errors.
We then get a few paragraphs repeating the delusion that geo-engineering can “solve” climate change, as above, NOT:
- Why Levitt and Dubner like geo-engineering and why they are wrong
- The Geoengineering Quandary (In Living Color)
He sums up with a totally irrelevant reference to Marxism (and here Frankbi thought he was out-idioting the Deniers … sorry Frank, as per Poe’s Law, it can’t be done), and the following confession to delusions of adequacy
“my sincere apologies to the authors for an endorsement that will surely give their critics another cartridge of ammunition“
No fear Brett, you’ve said nothing, there is absolutely nothing here to use as ammunition. For content you have created the intellectual perfect vacuum. And regardless, we would not hold Levitt and Dubner responsible for your inability to be honest or write a coherent article, so no worries on that score.
The only remaining enigma is how it is that someone who embraces an ideology that requires such pathetic lies and distortions to prop it up, manages to get through a day. That is a huge superfreaking mystery.
“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.
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.