
Error-riddled ‘Superfreakonomics’, Part 2: With takedown of Nathan Myhrvold - MaysonL
http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/14/superfreakonomics-errors-nathan-myhrvold-intellectual-ventures-bill-gates-warren-buffet/
======
protomyth
The problem with any conservation or alternate-but-higher-priced energy is
that it ignores the third world. The first world got where it is by using
"dirty" energy to power our industry. If we don't develop ways to make cheaper
energy sources, then the third world will ignore them and develop on the same
path we did.

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.

~~~
Xichekolas
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.

~~~
protomyth
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.

------
tlb
This chain of reasoning:

    
    
       we discover more oil => we burn more fossil fuels =>
       => global temperatures increase => poor people starve
    

is very tenuous. Discovering more oil is mainly bad for people that already
own major oil reserves, and they lobby subtly for peak oil & carbon caps. More
oil discoveries probably don't cause major increases in the amount consumed.

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.

~~~
ugh
Could you please explain to me where this argument is made in the above linked
article? I couldn’t find it.

------
camccann
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.

~~~
protomyth
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.

~~~
camccann
_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...

~~~
protomyth
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.

~~~
camccann
_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.

~~~
protomyth
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.

------
Zarkonnen
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.

------
stgarrity
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>

~~~
camccann
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?

------
teilo
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.

~~~
petewarden
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...](http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/10/12/oppositional-moralities-
and-nobel-revisionism/)

~~~
ellyagg
For folks who love snark, attention to detail, and a thorough statistical
treatment of global warming from the other side, see climateaudit.org.

