(And, really, it’s not like Myrvhold accomplished anything amazing at Microsoft. Are we really sure we want Microsoft’s 1990s *CTO* in charge of saving the planet?)

Furthermore, the Earth is what, 4 billion years old?

Extrapolating from a mere 50-100 year stretch of ostensible *climate change* would be like predicting the long run returns of a stock from a single price tick.

If these climate scientists don’t epitomize *intellectual arrogance*, then who does?

I found it hilarious that the authors are being lynched for this one chapter. But since so many of Freakonomics’ fans were clearly organic, Mac-loving, green-types…what did they expect? Know they customer, right?

Personally, I thought their first book was way overrated.

“Dubner and Levitt come across in the global warming chapter as a couple of dilettantes out to provoke more than enlighten”

http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2009/10/20/the-freakonomists-vs-the-world

In what way would not IPCC be credible? and what filter are you refering to? Btw the concept of ppv does not account for the “earth orbit around the sun” debate since that was in the 16th century and was in conflict with both religion and the wide held geocentric model(s) from Aristotle. Science is an entirely different thing today.

I am a bit in a hurry but the cold fusion claims is one place where skepticism paid off. Oh, and the concept that the earth does rotate around the sun was not widely held and change was resisted. IPCC is about defending by deflecting criticism. IPCC is not settled science.

So yeah, scientific skepticism is useful. No? IPCC cannot tolerate it. They are attacked personally (alinsky-style) as “deniers”. Makes one wonder, or should at least. Sorry I do not have time for a longer post.

IPCC is not credible. Their “research” has a filter.

I’ve read all the blogs – Romm, yours and Freakonomics. I am not a scientist, nor an economist but I think I’m a critical thinker. To me, in the end you backed off correctly by saying there are few factual errors. Now you state your case by saying Levitt is “misleading.” But you state that there are few errors? So a simple question: In your mind could there ever be a legitamate different point of view from your own or are they all categorically “misleading?”
This subject is no longer about neither economics nor science; it’s religion. Thanks to Levitt for at least trying to be open minded and offer some different points of view.

Example of journalistic objectivity: “Many scientists say the Earth revolves around the sun, but there are some who say it doesn’t.” (To wit: “Both sides of the story”)

Example of scientific objectivity: “The balance of evidence forces us to conclude that the Earth revolves around the sun.” (To wit: “Go where the evidence leads”)

Please explain how the former advances scientific understanding, or indeed has any place in scientific reports (such as the peer-reviewed literature the IPCC is based on.)

If it was it would present opposing facts.

Economics may be a consensus game but not science.

As an economist I would assume you would take the time to analyze the marginal impact of extreme measures like Cap and Trade.

I read most of what Joe Romm wrote on this issue, and the language used does not match that of any reputable scientific or engineering paper or essay that I have read. After recognizing this, I was not surprised to see the email where Romm specifically requested a derogatory quote from Caldeira, even giving a suggestion as to the phrasing. I WAS surprised to read that Caldeira had been provided with a draft of the Superfreakonomics climate chapter and had given it his approval, without actually reviewing it.

My conclusion is that neither side in this debate has proven their point in anything resembling a rigorous, scientific manner. But after observing the language and approach used by Romm, I find myself struggling against a tendency to dismiss all similar claims as propaganda. I do suspect that there are a number of facts supported by solid scientific evidence that align with Romm’s viewpoints, but the recent debate has not helped me to learn about them.

One last thought. All I have read from the Superfreakonomics critics are that the authors are wrong and misleading about climate science. But it seems to me that the reason most people are so passionate about climate science is not the science itself, but rather the implications that climate has on our world, our lives, and the lives of our children. I would feel more engaged in the subject if the discussions focused on practical ways to improve the climate. Superfreakonomics presented one idea along those lines. I’d like to hear many more ideas.