Begins like this (Some thoughts on SuperFreakonomics):
I admit that I’m torn in my opinion about SuperFreakonomics. I was predisposed to fully embrace it. The first book, Freakonomics, did great things for the economics profession. It made economics interesting and readable. It broadened the scope of the field in the mind of the public. Plus, Dubner is a graduate of Appalachian State University. He came to campus, gave the opening convocation talk, I went to his public reading, met him and he sent my kids a free copy of his Belly Button book. I’ve also contributed at the Freakonomics blog. So, I was horrified to hear that they got the science in their climate change chapter all wrong.
Don’t be mistaken. I don’t know if it is all wrong or not. I’m a simple economist. But it seems that real-life climate scientists, and not just the advocates, think that it is really, really wrong as well. The problem, to me, is that Dubner and Levitt stepped a bit too far outside their realm of economics.
And ends like this:
I wish SuperFreakonomics had stuck to economics.
In the middle I tell a fish story.
