Super Freakonomics is getting a lot of flak for its flip contrarianism on climate change, most of which seems based on incorrectly believing solar panels are black (they’re blue, and this has surprisingly large energy implications) and misquoting important climate scientists.

{ Washington Post | Continue reading }

At first glance, what it looks like is that Levitt and Dubner have fallen into the trap of counterintuitiveness. For a long time, there’s been an accepted way for commentators on politics and to some extent economics to distinguish themselves: by shocking the bourgeoisie, in ways that of course aren’t really dangerous. Ann Coulter is making sense! Bush is good for the environment! You get the idea.

Clever snark like this can get you a long way in career terms — but the trick is knowing when to stop.

{ Paul Krugman/NY Times | Continue reading }

update:

They have given the impression that we are global-warming deniers of the worst sort, and that our analysis of the issue is ideological and unscientific. Most gravely, we stand accused of misrepresenting the views of one of the most respected climate scientists on the scene, whom we interviewed extensively. If everything they said was actually true, it would indeed be a damning indictment. But it’s not.

{ Freakonomics/NY Times | Continue reading | Also: Superfreakingmeta }

photo { Grant Cornett }

quote { Marx & Engels on Skepticism & Praxis: Selected Quotations }

unrelated { A new short novel from Don DeLillo is scheduled to appear in February, 2010, entitled Point Omega }

books | October 17th, 2009