Comments on: Superfreakonomics and bad incentives

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 20:18:08 +0000

Another lovely article! Forgive me for having missed your blog for so long. For a while I thought you only had the China blog, I’m afraid.

By: Colin

Colin — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:42:20 +0000

Well, he specifically (mis)quoted a scientist implying that carbon emissions were not important. But given there background, indeed their whole schtick is in how incentives alter behaviour, I’m sure they could do better than “let’s give up and build an artificial volcano.”

No, I think it’s unambiguously a dismissal of the science and a plea to go with the quick fix and move on to the next problem.

By: Paul of Goo

Paul of Goo — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 12:36:45 +0000

I read the chapter differently. I thought the geo engineering was over emphasised and that some of the science was poor, but the major point I got was that people will not do things for altruistic reason.

By: Geordie

Geordie — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 02:05:28 +0000

Colin : I didn't read it as harmful to climate change to have black solar panels, but as more of challenging the "conventional wisdom" that the first thing that pops to our head re clean energy may require further consideration before mas signoff. I thinks in some ways, superfreakonomics outclassed the original. Well, when the authors point out that solar panels won’t help global warming because they are black and thus absorb heat, I get a bit worried. When you factor in that millions of voters will read this book, perhaps some melodrama creeps in a bit.

By: Aidan

Aidan — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 06:31:30 +0000

My friend Steve said he was boycotting Superfreakonomics because of the controversy of the climate change chapters.

I still enjoyed the first 3 chapters in the book.

Harford’s The Logic of Life and Dan Ariel’s Predictibly Irrational are both good reads though.

By: Colin

Colin — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 04:16:43 +0000

Harford’s book looks interesting. I might try and track down a copy – your review wasn’t exactly glowing, though…

By: Danny Yee

Danny Yee — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 03:36:46 +0000

And yes, Levitt and Dubner seem to have jumped the shark completely with Superfreakonomics!

By: Danny Yee

Danny Yee — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 03:35:15 +0000

I haven't read Freakonomics, but I read Tim Harford's The Logic of Life, which seems kind of similar. My feelings about the whole approach are in my review.

By: Colin

Colin — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:36:46 +0000

Well, when the authors point out that solar panels won’t help global warming because they are black and thus absorb heat, I get a bit worried. When you factor in that millions of voters will read this book, perhaps some melodrama creeps in a bit. 🙂

By: Geordie

Geordie — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:33:38 +0000

Colin, a little melodramatically decrying the authors’ slightly melodramatic decrying of climate scientists’ slightly melodramatic decrying. My head’s spinning 😉