Dubner falsely claims that ocean acidification is addressed in Superfreakonomics

Thingsbreak has been documenting the way Levitt and Dubner keeping digging the hole deeper, and Dubner has kept on digging with this whopper:

we believe that anyone who reads our chapter without an agenda wouldn’t even find it particularly controversial. They will see that we routinely address the concerns that critics accuse us of ignoring (the problem of ocean acidification, e.g., and the “excuse to pollute” that geoengineering solutions might afford), and that we neither “misrepresent” climate scientists nor flub the facts.

Here is everything they say in chapter 5 about ocean acidification.

[Caldeira] and a co-author coined the phrase ‘ocean acidification.’ the process by which the seas absorb so much carbon dioxide that corals and other shallow-water organisms are threatened.

Far from addressing it, they don’t even mention that their proposed scheme will do nothing about it.

And while Dubner has studiously avoided linking to any of the “attacks” he links to defences. Trouble is, the only defenders he has are global warming deniers like Bret “It’s a Mass Neurosis!” Stevens and Jonah “It’s the sun!” Goldberg, or people like Jon Stewart who admit that they don’t know anything about the subject.

Comments

#1 Chris W
November 4, 2009

Dave Andrews,

How the hell would you know if they have limited time or don’t apply due dilligence !!??

I’m not a scientist but I do find that, even in the field I work in, busy people invest a lot of time and effort in peer review. They feel they have a professional obligation to find and highlight issues which are incorrect, lacking in relevant detail, or don’t support the argument presented.

Understandably they seem to think it reflects on THEM as reviewers if they let things slide. Maybe it’s just my opinion, but I expect those same human feelings drive climate scientists.

The impression I get from you is you deeply believe they’re perennially slovenly, slipshod, venal, can’t be trusted, lack professional pride, and are prone to lying.

You’re a depressing whiner mate.
#2 Mark
November 4, 2009

> The impression I get from you is you deeply believe they’re perennially slovenly, slipshod, venal, can’t be trusted, lack professional pride, and are prone to lying.

> Posted by: Chris W

It’s called projection, Chris.

He does that so he thinks everyone does that.

Just like you work conscientiously so you think everyone does.

Thing is, though this makes Ducky somewhat right, he has to be right for EVERY SINGLE REVIEWER.

Given out of two people we have one slacktard and one conscientious. we could figure 50:50 split.

5 reviewers means 1 in 2^5 chance of Ducky being right in this one specific particular case. Couple of percent.

Chance he’s right generally: mathematically indistinguishable from zero.

Mind you, it DOES just as equally work with the unreviewed blog papers denialists post. Gerlich & Tscheisher (or whatever their names were) ignored the review comments and got their work in to a out-of-view journal anyway. And I don’t think they had two reviewers.

50:50 chance (better if they ignored the reviewer comments) that this paper G&T wrote is bunk because the reviewer didn’t bother.

Funny how he doesn’t use this to debunk papers he parades as proof AGW is wrong, isn’t it…
#3 Eamon
November 4, 2009

el gordo@93

And today we had a very nice day in Northern Japan – with Autumn temperatures returning to normal.

Your climatic trend start had been put back a wee bit.
#4 Bud
November 4, 2009

@ChrisW “Understandably they seem to think it reflects on THEM as reviewers if they let things slide. Maybe it’s just my opinion, but I expect those same human feelings drive climate scientists.”

Well, that’s where you’re wrong. Climate scientists aren’t human. They are walking robotic research-grant-magnets held together with bits of spare wire and the blood of poor African children. Controlled by giant hockey sticks coming out their arses.

At least, that’s the impression I get from DA.

Which makes Mark’s projection theory DEEPLY disturbing…
#5 Mark
November 4, 2009

> Which makes Mark’s projection theory DEEPLY disturbing…

> Posted by: Bud

Especially if you have to look after string…

NOTE: it’s a standard psychological theory not one I made up or found.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection>

Given that Freud often used the sex drive as the phyche’s imperateur, and Ducky’s possible string->arse theory makes it doubly disturbing.

#6 Hank Roberts
November 4, 2009

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/s_11042009_520.gif
#7 Hank Roberts
November 4, 2009

oh, fick …

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/cartoonsandvideos/toles\_sketch.html
#8 Bruce Sharp
November 4, 2009

Fick? Hank, that’s another typo. [Clearly, you meant "frak."](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7KcpgQKo2I)
#9 Dave Andrews
November 4, 2009

Chris W,

When you are an eminent scientist in your field you might get several requests for peer review over a limited period of time. In the fevered atmpsphere of climate change this is especially likely.

Now take Mann. He has produced a number of papers over the years that have all used novel statistical methods to derive their results. A number of these papers have subsequently been dissected by real statisticians and found to be wanting. None of this was picked up or even commented upon by the peer reviewers. He also stonewalled on making his methods available to others and when they were eventuall teased from him they were often indecipherable. Yet still the peer reviewers had given their original consent.

So just what is your problem with my earlier post?
#10 Mark
November 4, 2009

> Now take Mann. He has produced a number of papers over the years that have all used novel statistical methods to derive their results.

By this, read:

> … used statistical methods to derive their results

> So just what is your problem with my earlier post?

> Posted by: Dave Andrews

The facts that

a) it’s complete bollocks

b) it’s unsubstatiated

c) it’s an assumption on the scientists’ personal lives you know nothing about

Ducky.
#11 Dave Andrews
November 5, 2009

Mark,

Do you deny that Mann has used novel statistical methods in several of his papers?

If you do you just don’t understand what he has done.
#12 Hank Roberts
November 5, 2009

Actually, I meant:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinion/ssi/images/Toles/s\_11042009\_520.gif
#13 Bernard J.
November 10, 2009

[El fatso](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/dubner_falsely_claims_that_oce.php#comment-2038470).

I have a 10% stake in a nice littel family company which has generated [these after-tax profits](http://i33.tinypic.com/rgw31k.jpg) (adjusted for inflation, by the way) over the last 40 years.

If I were to offer to sell you all of my shares for $30k, and assuming that you had the loose change to be able to afford to do so, would you buy my stake?

Why?
#14 Bernard J.
November 10, 2009

Stuff. Tippy typo fingers…

I am selling myself short. I meant $300K.

So, would you buy if you had the loose change?
#15 el gordo
November 11, 2009

BJ No! It looks promising, but I would need to see an independent report.
#16 Bernard J.
November 11, 2009

Fatso.

Oh, I can certainly provide an independent report. Quite a number of them actually, and they would all say that the long-term profit forecast for my family’s company is extremely secure. In fact, in economic terms, there isn’t anything more secure than what these reports describe.

It’s blue chip. Thousands of the world’s best economists would agree. All the financial due-diligence and sundry business minutæ will say the same thing: all of the best advice is that the long-term profit growth of my company will follow – at the least! – the trend observed over the last 40 years.

Would you buy or not, and why?
#17 el gordo
November 11, 2009

What goes up will come down, as the financial crisis illustrated. How many economists predicted the crash? Very few.

It’s like that with the climate change debate. According to Kevin this minority of sceptics and deniers should be ignored because the scientists (the men in white coats) have said the science is settled. All based of course, from the very beginning, on the ‘precautionary principle’.

Global cooling appears more realistic, now that the odds are shortening.
#18 Bernard J.
November 12, 2009

So Fatso, what you’re saying is that you don’t trust data, but you’re happy to let ideology and aphorisms guide your decisions?
#19 Mark Byrne
November 12, 2009

el gordo, the economic debate has some similarities with the climate debate.

One side has the same players. Ask yourself who was screaming “DEREGULATE”, “CUT TAXES”? Often the same players who are saying global warming is a hoax. The front groups funded by massive self interested corporations.

I’ll give you three economist that picked the economic crash Steve Keen, Michael Hudson, and Dean Baker. I shifted my super becasue I paid attention. But the corporate media still give most air to those who were so wrong (and still are on the economy).

Now you can contact each of the three Economists and ask them about their views on the difficulty battling against the propaganda put out by the like of IPA, the Heritage Foundation and the Fraser Institute.

But while there are similarities there are major differences between climate science and economics. Climate models are bound by physical properties that are quantifiable, unlike much of the soft sciences.
#20 Chris O'Neill
November 12, 2009

el gordo:

How many economists predicted the crash? Very few.
It’s like that with the climate change debate.

Because after all, both climatology and economics are sciences. Sure.

According to Kevin this minority of sceptics and deniers should be ignored because the scientists (the men in white coats) have said the science is settled.

I don’t know what Kevin said but the only people I know who say the scientists say the science is settled are the people in denial about the science.

Global cooling appears more realistic,

Sure if you say so. You’re like the Pope. You only need to say something and it’s true.

now that the odds are shortening

So the infamous “cooling since 1998″ is in the process of disappearing and will likely disappear with October’s data and you think this means the odds of cooling are shortening? Sure Pope.
#21 el gordo
November 13, 2009

I’m not infallible. Six weeks ago I predicted El Nino would be still born, but it’s more like a virgin birth.

‘The SOI has recently stabilised after a rapid fall in value through October’.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/

Weather forecasting is tricky, although I’m still punting on eastern Europe being snowed in this winter.
#22 Dave Andrews
November 16, 2009

Mark Byrne

“Climate models are bound by physical properties that are quantifiable, “

Superficially you are correct. But there are so many unknowns and parameratizations that have to be built into the models that ultimately you are probably TOTALLY INCORRECT>
#23 Mark Byrne
November 16, 2009

Dave Andrews,

What does *”ultimately you are probably TOTALLY INCORRECT”* mean? It seem you are not sure about what you are “totally” sure about.

And on basis do you make this statement? Please provide references that contradict the statement that:

>*Climate models are bound by physical properties that are quantifiable, unlike much of the soft sciences.*

*- Where the soft science include social sciences like economics.
#24 Mark Byrne
November 17, 2009

It seems Dave Andrews has prefered to make [other claims](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-.php#comment-2083399) rather than support the claims he makes here. So I’ve [invited him back here](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/11/plimer_calls_his_critics_rent-.php#comment-2083809).
#25 Chris O'Neill
November 17, 2009

el gordo:

Weather forecasting is tricky, although I’m still punting on eastern Europe being snowed in this winter.

So you expect them to have a wet winter which means a warm winter.
#26 el gordo
November 17, 2009

Freezing in the east, cool and wet in the west. It depends a lot on the placing of the jet stream.