Reading about how poorly the authors researched their new book on Climate Change, apparently messing up the quotes from the real climate scientists they spoke to not only irritates this college professor who finds that sort of problem common to many weak student papers but makes me wonder about all those wonderful "supposed" insights their earlier book offered. Did they use the same weak research skills with that book as well?
Steven A. Leibo http://sagethoughts.wordpress.com/
Wow, how about a little perspective here? Read Dubner's article in the NYT regarding the work they did with the Climate Scientists in question on this one chapter of the new book and then see if you feel the same as what was written above. The moral of the story (so far): don't believe everything you read, especially on far left- or right-wing sites with axes to grind and agendas to push.
I really really enjoyed this book. After reading the climate chapter I immediately wrote all my congressmen and senators to oppose cap and trade laws designed to cripple our economy and destroy our pristine wild environment with inefficient solar cells and wind mills.
Yes I love our pristine wildlands and hate to see them defaced with inefficient bird killing windmills and groundwater depleting solar cells. To speak nothing of the immense infrastructure of roads and high power lines which will be inflicted on the country. How much time do you spend out here on the prairie?
I'm appalled that this book is getting away with manipulating the public and passing itself off as a serious and well-considered contribution to long-term policy and planning. Mr Levitt and Mr Dubner, shame on you--this is not scholarship. Please sit down and shut up.
The book's introduction should tell you right off the bat that these two authors have strayed away from science and reasoning towards controversial statements meant to generate... well, controversy and revenue. From now on, their books should be in the fiction sections of bookstores and libraries. Advocating drunk driving in any condition borders on the side of evil. Don't tell me that the book suggests that drunk people should call a cab or hitch a ride with a friend. When someone is drunk and they're holding car keys, do you really think they're going to do anything other than drive? Shame on you Steven and Stephen. Shame.
I haven't read it (although I loved the original Freakonomics), but here is a question for those who did. Do the authors advocate drunk driving over drunk walking because a person is less likely to harm himself--without taking into account the likely harm to others? If so, that is incredibly irresponsible. Because there is _zero_ likelihood of killing someone else while walking drunk. I hope they don't forget to take into account the externality of killing someone else when driving drunk!