climateprogress.org — The new sequel to freakonomics pushes global cooling myths, sheer illogic, and 'patent nonsense' and the primary climatologist it relies on, Ken Caldeira, says 'it is an inaccurate portrayal of me' and 'misleading' in many places. Joe Romm debunks it convincingly here.
Oct 16, 2009 View in Crawl 4
mattrueOct 19, 2009
I like how the biggest "howler" (is that from Matlock?) they could find was this omission: "What was the absorbtivity or emissivity of the material that the panel covered up?"Are solar power plants currently built or going to be built on rooftops?And 12% efficiency versus 18.5% in newer technology doesn't seem like a groundbreaking improvement. Hardly a "howler".Looks like this is all part of a smear campaign. The "superfreaks" do a good job of straightening out the facts:<a class="user" href="http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/global-warming-in-superfreakonomics-the-anatomy-of-a-smear/" rel="nofollow">http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/g ...</a>
silverelanOct 19, 2009
Buried. Romm's piece reads like a rambling diatribe that borders on being completely incoherent, especially when confronted with the response from Stephen Dubner.