Error-riddled ‘Superfreakonomics’, Part 2: With takedown of Nathan Myhrvold(climateprogress.org)
climateprogress.org
Error-riddled ‘Superfreakonomics’, Part 2: With takedown of Nathan Myhrvold
http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/14/superfreakonomics-errors-nathan-myhrvold-intellectual-ventures-bill-gates-warren-buffet/
20 comments
While I don't disagree with you, clean coal is not the only answer to a place like China. As you said, the cheapest energy will win in the third world, so making a renewable source cheaper than coal would also do the trick.
I'm not claiming such an alternative exists at the moment, but that doesn't mean we should stop researching renewables and conservation and put all our eggs in the clean coal basket. The nature of innovation is that we try many things before finding something that works. If clean coal really is the best answer, then it will happen.
I'm not claiming such an alternative exists at the moment, but that doesn't mean we should stop researching renewables and conservation and put all our eggs in the clean coal basket. The nature of innovation is that we try many things before finding something that works. If clean coal really is the best answer, then it will happen.
One of the big problems is that there is only the now for a lot of the world. China needs to power its modernization and expansion right now. Coal is proven, plentiful in China, and provides constant energy cheaply.
I too believe that we need to work on a lot of methods. Backing any one horse is insanity. Wind is nice, but not a constant producer. Solar is nice, but also not a constant producer. We don't really do mass energy storage yet. Nuclear is great except for PR and waste (still irks me we spent all that tax money on a permanent solution and then we cannot use it). We need a whole list of sources that provide a secure blanket no matter what goes on.
Conservation will work for the first world, but not the growing economies. They want a first world life and know how we got there.
Also, the US needs to realize there is a large tax implication in switching from a liquid fuel economy for transportation. We need to work out these issues without killing the poor (GPS = big hit bills = poor with transport in large areas of country not serviced by mass transit) or messing up other areas of the economy.
I too believe that we need to work on a lot of methods. Backing any one horse is insanity. Wind is nice, but not a constant producer. Solar is nice, but also not a constant producer. We don't really do mass energy storage yet. Nuclear is great except for PR and waste (still irks me we spent all that tax money on a permanent solution and then we cannot use it). We need a whole list of sources that provide a secure blanket no matter what goes on.
Conservation will work for the first world, but not the growing economies. They want a first world life and know how we got there.
Also, the US needs to realize there is a large tax implication in switching from a liquid fuel economy for transportation. We need to work out these issues without killing the poor (GPS = big hit bills = poor with transport in large areas of country not serviced by mass transit) or messing up other areas of the economy.
This is similar to the view advanced by Freeman Dyson.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson#Global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson#Global_warming
This chain of reasoning:
Burning fossil fuels may cause global warming, or may not, or it may be easy to fix by adding some dust to the upper atmosphere. Most people seem to accept it as an article of faith either way.
Global temperature increases may cause a reduction in food supply, or an increase. Certainly much of northern China will increase food production with a longer growing season. It probably increases ocean fish yields too. So it's very debatable as to the net effect.
Anyway, a claim depending on 3 somewhat dubious claims is extremely dubious. Maybe you believe each has a 75% chance of being true, but then all 3 have only a 42% chance of being true, so I'm assuming it's false.
we discover more oil => we burn more fossil fuels =>
=> global temperatures increase => poor people starve
Burning fossil fuels may cause global warming, or may not, or it may be easy to fix by adding some dust to the upper atmosphere. Most people seem to accept it as an article of faith either way.
Global temperature increases may cause a reduction in food supply, or an increase. Certainly much of northern China will increase food production with a longer growing season. It probably increases ocean fish yields too. So it's very debatable as to the net effect.
Anyway, a claim depending on 3 somewhat dubious claims is extremely dubious. Maybe you believe each has a 75% chance of being true, but then all 3 have only a 42% chance of being true, so I'm assuming it's false.
Could you please explain to me where this argument is made in the above linked article? I couldn’t find it.
Disregarding the... obvious slant and loaded language of the site, between this and Part 1 of the post it's pretty depressing the disregard for science apparently displayed by this book. I enjoyed Freakonomics, but this really lowers my respect for the authors.
Let's see... equating global warming to a "religion", credulously repeating assertions from people with no expertise, quote-mining and misrepresenting the views of someone who does have expertise, seizing on superficially appealing answers with no firm foundation, and so on. Honestly, it reminds me the style of argumentation you get from the anti-evolution crowd.
Maybe we should get climate scientists to come up with some edgy, contrarian solutions to the current economic problems, since apparently established bodies of knowledge aren't as important as having catchy-sounding ideas.
Let's see... equating global warming to a "religion", credulously repeating assertions from people with no expertise, quote-mining and misrepresenting the views of someone who does have expertise, seizing on superficially appealing answers with no firm foundation, and so on. Honestly, it reminds me the style of argumentation you get from the anti-evolution crowd.
Maybe we should get climate scientists to come up with some edgy, contrarian solutions to the current economic problems, since apparently established bodies of knowledge aren't as important as having catchy-sounding ideas.
I don't think the global warming movement is a religion, but there are some fun social parallels to the middle ages church. Cap-and-trade has the look of indulgences and the treatment of heretics.
I am really worried that we have lost all semblance and science and am truly glad that none of the "solutions" to global cooling in the 1970s were implemented (spread ash on the north pole). I really think no one has been served by the politicalizing of science. I worry that anti-corporation and anti-technology are so mixed into this stuff.
I am really worried that we have lost all semblance and science and am truly glad that none of the "solutions" to global cooling in the 1970s were implemented (spread ash on the north pole). I really think no one has been served by the politicalizing of science. I worry that anti-corporation and anti-technology are so mixed into this stuff.
I don't think the global warming movement is a religion, but there are some fun social parallels to the middle ages church. Cap-and-trade has the look of indulgences and the treatment of heretics.
Sure, if you really want to view everything through a politicized perspective. Seems to me like a pretty sensible way to apply decentralized market principles to implement a reduction in emissions. What would you prefer, strict limits set by authoritarian fiat, regardless of economic costs? Turning the ability to produce CO2 into a tradable commodity and letting market forces find the most cost-effective means of reducing output seems like a very sound plan.
The cap-and-trade argument is amusing, though; it's pretty funny to hear people who are essentially socialists advocating a market-based solution, while supposed free market supporters complain bitterly. Ah, politics.
I am really worried that we have lost all semblance and science and am truly glad that none of the "solutions" to global cooling in the 1970s were implemented (spread ash on the north pole).
The difference being, of course, that "global cooling" was a briefly considered hypothesis that got sensationalized in the media, while the warming trends are backed by near unanimous scientific consensus over many years.
Not that anyone could tell by listening to how the issues are discussed, of course. Who cares what the actual scientists say?
I really think no one has been served by the politicalizing of science. I worry that anti-corporation and anti-technology are so mixed into this stuff.
Opposition to nuclear power is a good example; environmentally it's probably the best option we currently have, but supposed environmentalists oppose it for... reasons that I don't really understand. Again, apparently no one cares what the science says...
Sure, if you really want to view everything through a politicized perspective. Seems to me like a pretty sensible way to apply decentralized market principles to implement a reduction in emissions. What would you prefer, strict limits set by authoritarian fiat, regardless of economic costs? Turning the ability to produce CO2 into a tradable commodity and letting market forces find the most cost-effective means of reducing output seems like a very sound plan.
The cap-and-trade argument is amusing, though; it's pretty funny to hear people who are essentially socialists advocating a market-based solution, while supposed free market supporters complain bitterly. Ah, politics.
I am really worried that we have lost all semblance and science and am truly glad that none of the "solutions" to global cooling in the 1970s were implemented (spread ash on the north pole).
The difference being, of course, that "global cooling" was a briefly considered hypothesis that got sensationalized in the media, while the warming trends are backed by near unanimous scientific consensus over many years.
Not that anyone could tell by listening to how the issues are discussed, of course. Who cares what the actual scientists say?
I really think no one has been served by the politicalizing of science. I worry that anti-corporation and anti-technology are so mixed into this stuff.
Opposition to nuclear power is a good example; environmentally it's probably the best option we currently have, but supposed environmentalists oppose it for... reasons that I don't really understand. Again, apparently no one cares what the science says...
I think there currently is precious little in this whole debate that isn't politicized. Anytime you deal with people and social solution you get politics. I just find it interesting that some of the thinking that brought paid indulgences to the medieval church have returned in the modern era. The history of indulgences is very entertaining.
My personal biggest problem with cap-and-trade is that it doesn't address any issues of the third world. Also, after reading about the implementation, it seems to create a new class of people making money off a system and not a product.
My personal biggest problem with cap-and-trade is that it doesn't address any issues of the third world. Also, after reading about the implementation, it seems to create a new class of people making money off a system and not a product.
I think there currently is precious little in this whole debate that isn't politicized.
Yes, which is all the more reason to call out the bullshit artists when they're trying to make things worse. Just throwing your hands up and ignoring it only enables the people who want to twist science to their own ends.
Yes, which is all the more reason to call out the bullshit artists when they're trying to make things worse. Just throwing your hands up and ignoring it only enables the people who want to twist science to their own ends.
I don't mind calling people out. I think removing the fallacies from debates is a great thing, but the bullshit artists have the biggest megaphones. Look at this article http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=887768 for the vaccine version of this crap. Too many people are using this particular debate to advance a monetary or political (anti-globalization, anti-technology, etc.) position that the real data and issues are not even part of the conversation anymore.
IMHO the big elephant in the room is that global warming is just one of the large environmental problems we're facing. There's also eg overfishing, deforestation, ocean acidification.
So even if we could "fix" global warming through geoengineering (and from all that I've read, signs point to no), there are still so many other problems that the only way not to mess up the planet completely is to change our habits and consume fewer resources.
You may now begin complaining about how the fact that the world is not infinitely bountiful impinges on your rights.
So even if we could "fix" global warming through geoengineering (and from all that I've read, signs point to no), there are still so many other problems that the only way not to mess up the planet completely is to change our habits and consume fewer resources.
You may now begin complaining about how the fact that the world is not infinitely bountiful impinges on your rights.
Tangential to the article, but very related to the overall debate, I thought HN might particularly appreciate Burt Rutan's presentation from Oshkosh '09 on climate change.
He basically starts off "I'm not a climatologist, I've a flight test engineer--but I look at data for a living. Here's my thoughts on all the data I've seen about this debate."
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
He basically starts off "I'm not a climatologist, I've a flight test engineer--but I look at data for a living. Here's my thoughts on all the data I've seen about this debate."
http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm
Hm, someone with no relevant knowledge or experience but impressive-sounding credentials, with a clear political bias, who's accusing everyone else of being equally biased, and trying to cast doubt on reasonably well understood science because he doesn't like the conclusions.
No, I'd say that kind of garbage is precisely related to the article.
I swear, if Al Gore were to go on television and tell everyone that the sky is blue, half the country would be lining up to insist that it must be green because blue skies are socialist or something (and if Rush Limbaugh said the sky was blue you'd have the other half denying it instead). Seriously, what is wrong with people that they would rather deny objective reality than compromise their political ideology?
No, I'd say that kind of garbage is precisely related to the article.
I swear, if Al Gore were to go on television and tell everyone that the sky is blue, half the country would be lining up to insist that it must be green because blue skies are socialist or something (and if Rush Limbaugh said the sky was blue you'd have the other half denying it instead). Seriously, what is wrong with people that they would rather deny objective reality than compromise their political ideology?
Consider the source. Climate Progress.org is a projet of the Center for American Progress, headed by John Podesta, self-described as "progressive" and setup expressly to counter groups such as the Heritage Foundation. No bias here.
Phew, glad I don't have to worry about any of the actual arguments or evidence then!
[Edit] On second thoughts, sorry, too glib. I try to be a bit more thoughtful for the HN. The point I was getting at is that there's verifiable facts, data and arguments in the post. It would be a much more interesting discussion, one I could learn from, if people would tackle those.
I'd also just read Julian Sanchez's piece on what he calls the 'oppositional morality' cognitive bias, the tendency to disbelieve evidence that The Others are using to push their conclusions: http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/10/12/oppositional-moralit...
[Edit] On second thoughts, sorry, too glib. I try to be a bit more thoughtful for the HN. The point I was getting at is that there's verifiable facts, data and arguments in the post. It would be a much more interesting discussion, one I could learn from, if people would tackle those.
I'd also just read Julian Sanchez's piece on what he calls the 'oppositional morality' cognitive bias, the tendency to disbelieve evidence that The Others are using to push their conclusions: http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/10/12/oppositional-moralit...
CAP is hardly progressive. I'd say it's accurately socially-permissive centrist with a neo-imperialist bent. Remember: this is the same think tank that stood right behind the Republicans in the run-up to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. When Iraq turned into a quagmire their tune changed. They still haven't given up hope on Afghanistan, but I imagine their view will change in the unlikely event Obama decides to go with Biden over McCrystal.
Look at China, coal is their answer because it is cheap and available. We could do more good in the world, if someone created a clean coal process and license / gave it to the Chinese.
We have the luxury of being greener with current technologies, much of the world is not in that position.