• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Republicans don’t want a speaker to lead them; they want a hostage.

This has so much WTF written all over it that it is hard to comprehend.

Come on, man.

Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn.

When I decide to be condescending, you won’t have to dream up a fantasy about it.

If you are still in the GOP, you are an extremist.

Incompetence, fear, or corruption? why not all three?

Tick tock motherfuckers!

Historically it was a little unusual for the president to be an incoherent babbling moron.

I really should read my own blog.

Sadly, there is no cure for stupid.

People are complicated. Love is not.

I was promised a recession.

No offense, but this thread hasn’t been about you for quite a while.

Consistently wrong since 2002

Republicans seem to think life begins at the candlelight dinner the night before.

Optimism opens the door to great things.

Do not shrug your shoulders and accept the normalization of untruths.

Republicans are the party of chaos and catastrophe.

Take your GOP plan out of the witness protection program.

We’ve had enough carrots to last a lifetime. break out the sticks.

Anyone who bans teaching American history has no right to shape America’s future.

They traffic in fear. it is their only currency. if we are fearful, they are winning.

Roe isn’t about choice, it’s about freedom.

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Past Elections / Election 2008 / How They Do It In Chicago

How They Do It In Chicago

by Tim F|  October 31, 200911:30 am| 26 Comments

This post is in: Election 2008, Excellent Links, Science & Technology, General Stupidity

FacebookTweetEmail

As much as I love the professional climatologists who write RealClimate, they rarely let the anti-science crowd bait them into the kind of high dudgeon that makes PZ Myers or Tom Levenson so much fun to read.

Part of the reason for their patient tone is that most denialists are either too limited (e.g., Inhofe) or too mercenary (TechCentralStation, George Will) to absorb any correction. Since the debate opponent won’t even acknowledge that you exist most of the time, real climate scientists usually write for interested third parties. That is what makes the response from RC to the pseudo-denialist authors of Superfreakonomics (in truth, contrarians of the vanity kind that DougJ writes about), professionals with credibility to defend, so worthwhile to read.

I have very much enjoyed and benefited from the growing collaborations between Geosciences and the Economics department here at the University of Chicago, and had hoped someday to have the pleasure of making your acquaintance. It is more in disappointment than anger that I am writing to you now.

I am addressing this to you rather than your journalist-coauthor because one has become all too accustomed to tendentious screeds from media personalities (think Glenn Beck) with a reckless disregard for the truth. However, if it has come to pass that we can’t expect the William B. Ogden Distinguished Service Professor (and Clark Medalist to boot) at a top-rated department of a respected university to think clearly and honestly with numbers, we are indeed in a sad way.

No more excerpts. The whole post is great so go read it.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « Saturday Morning Open Thread
Next Post: Open Thread »

Reader Interactions

26Comments

  1. 1.

    AdamK

    October 31, 2009 at 11:42 am

    Spelled PZ Myers’ name wrong.

  2. 2.

    Tim F.

    October 31, 2009 at 11:45 am

    @AdamK: fixd. thanks.

  3. 3.

    DBrown

    October 31, 2009 at 11:47 am

    No matter how stupid AGW climate deniers are, they always find new ways to become even greater asswipes – if their creativity was used to make electricity, this would generate one nano-amp for one picosecond

  4. 4.

    MikeJ

    October 31, 2009 at 11:53 am

    Of course the superfreaks will ignore this. Their claim is that anyone who disagrees with their obvious genius is hysterical, believing in superstition over facts. Thus there’s no reason to even bother their beautiful minds with evidence that undercuts their theses.

    In other words, they act exactly like you would expect Chicago economists to act.

  5. 5.

    BruceFromOhio

    October 31, 2009 at 11:54 am

    The map at the end of the article is a pretty sweet accent on a useful analytical exercise.

    What stands in the way of genuine progress on climate change? Ignorance and greed. Changing how people think may be about as difficult as changing how they produce and consume energy, perhaps even more so.

  6. 6.

    Shinobi

    October 31, 2009 at 12:08 pm

    I now want to go to UofC for geosciences just so I can study from this guy. That was awesome, I need a cigarette.

  7. 7.

    inkadu

    October 31, 2009 at 12:15 pm

    Superfreakanomics:Geoscience::MacGyver:Science.

    Shorter Superfreak: Oh my god! Do you know if you completely ignore a large part of the problem — the hard part — there’s a very simple solution! I’m a genius!

    For instance:

    sqrt(2)= ?

    The answer is 2! Yes, there is the sqrt there, but have you ever thought it COULD be 2? I mean, are you saying there ISN’T a 2 there? But I can write that equation any way I like:

    s q r t ( 2 )

    sqrt(2)

    )2(trqs

    …

    There’s still a 2! Why are you arguing with me? Maybe this is why you haven’t solved the problem yet… and you are clearly ignoring my brilliant solution.

  8. 8.

    Unabogie

    October 31, 2009 at 12:19 pm

    I happen to know two otherwise bright people who doubt that global warming even exists.

    If they don’t accept the science by now, they’re beyond hope.

    I just hope the deniers never gain power again.

  9. 9.

    Joel

    October 31, 2009 at 12:26 pm

    The tone was pretty civil.

    If books were treated to the scholarly standard, you’d see Steven Levitt issue a retraction.

  10. 10.

    Brachiator

    October 31, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    Since the debate opponent won’t even acknowledge that you exist most of the time, real climate scientists usually write for interested third parties instead. That is what makes the response from RC to the pseudo-denialist authors of Superfreakonomics (in truth, contrarians of the vanity kind that DougJ writes about), professionals with credibility to defend, so worthwhile to read.

    Did Levitt respond to this anywhere? One of the problems of pundits and public intellectuals is that they rarely acknowledge a correction to their original writing, or worse, fall back on the nonsense claim that since they were only expressing their opinion, they don’t have to be correct about anything.

    The other inconvenient truth lurking behind this exchange is the likelihood that some economists are bad at math, that is, they can’t do the math that scientists do. Pierrehumbert assumes that Levitt was lazy or couldn’t be bothered to get the math right, but it is possible that Levitt simply didn’t know how to go about framing the problem and then doing the math to solve the problem.

    By the way, even worse than this are people like Andrew Sullivan who can’t even think like scientists do, and who insist on turning scientific questions into pointless philosophical reveries.

  11. 11.

    trollhattan

    October 31, 2009 at 12:32 pm

    Bravo. By the time unleashes “academic malpractice” he has so completely devastated the book it seems like the mildest of rebukes, but I suspect in that world it’s like calling the pope an agent of the devil. When the pope is discovered to be an agent of the devil.

  12. 12.

    gwangung

    October 31, 2009 at 12:42 pm

    By the way, even worse than this are people like Andrew Sullivan who can’t even think like scientists do, and who insist on turning scientific questions into pointless philosophical reveries.

    Like in any “debate” about evolution.

    Sigh.

  13. 13.

    trollhattan

    October 31, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    @gwangung#12.

    Or the chronically terminally oblivious McMegan, who is so very useful on this topic.

  14. 14.

    rapido

    October 31, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    @ brachiator
    Levitt responded in the comments to the article but doesn’t say anything substantive in my opinion.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/an-open-letter-to-steve-levitt/#comment-140070

  15. 15.

    Tim F.

    October 31, 2009 at 12:57 pm

    @trollhattan: That was trash talk. ‘Academic misconduct’ is the term that pulls a trigger and starts a shitstorm.

  16. 16.

    MikeJ

    October 31, 2009 at 1:11 pm

    Levitt certainly got pretty pissy in his response. Again he accuses anyone who disagrees with him of holding “religious” (ie, not anchored in reality) views, even when the entire post had very simple, impossible to argue with maths.

  17. 17.

    Silver

    October 31, 2009 at 1:18 pm

    @MikeJ:

    I’d be pretty pissy too if I was exposed as either stunningly ignorant or a complete fraud.

    Of course, since Levitt is digging his heels in, look for him to end up at the AEI or Heritage or even Hoover at some point in the near future penning op-eds…

  18. 18.

    WyldPiratd

    October 31, 2009 at 2:17 pm

    oh my blessed FSM!

    Best. Smackdown. Ever.

    [email protected]:

    If books were treated to the scholarly standard, you’d see Steven Levitt issue a retraction.

    In a just world, Levitt would be asked to resign or be fired for academic fraud.

  19. 19.

    bago

    October 31, 2009 at 4:05 pm

    The map was a nice touch.

  20. 20.

    am

    October 31, 2009 at 4:26 pm

    That was great. The quality of scientific controversy has improved a lot in 5 years, though: https://balloon-juice.com/?p=6694

    (I was doing a search on another topic and it came up)

  21. 21.

    Comrade Mary

    October 31, 2009 at 4:27 pm

    Brilliant. Hot. Also.

    (What? It’s a weekend. I don’t do math on weekends. I just note if a guy is hot or not. And, no, I won’t plot a curve of his increase in hotness. That would be objectifying. And math.)

  22. 22.

    Comrade Jake

    October 31, 2009 at 7:44 pm

    Arguably one of the best parts about this whole thing is how Myrhvold has since suggested that his main point concerned how much energy is required to produce solar cells (Levitt hits on this in his response), vs. the whole emphasis the book places on them being black or only running at 12% efficiency.

    They’ve been trying to suggest “Oh no, you all have it wrong, what we really meant is THIS!”. Pierrehumbert CRUSHES this idea in his response to Levitt, which really must be read to appreciate (see rapido’s link above). Levitt really screwed the pooch here, and he is going to be the laughingstock of the academic community for many years to come.

  23. 23.

    Comrade Mary

    October 31, 2009 at 7:51 pm

    Oh, I’ve read Leavitt’s response. What a whingy prick that man is.

  24. 24.

    Arclite

    October 31, 2009 at 8:02 pm

    Wow, I wonder what other examples they could pick apart. Is there a list somewhere?

    Damn, the dude was crushed in this example.

  25. 25.

    BruinKid

    November 1, 2009 at 3:14 am

    Huzzah for blind statisticians. (No, not literally blind.)

  26. 26.

    sparky

    November 1, 2009 at 8:26 am

    nice title post. accurate, too.

    this will not have any effect on Levitt, except maybe for his next book deal. to me, this is just an example of academic hubris for the public. whether the public will remember is a different question.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Recent Comments

  • Elizabelle on Monday Afternoon Open Thread (Mar 20, 2023 @ 3:43pm)
  • rikyrah on Monday Afternoon Open Thread (Mar 20, 2023 @ 3:41pm)
  • Scout211 on Monday Afternoon Open Thread (Mar 20, 2023 @ 3:40pm)
  • NotMax on Monday Afternoon Open Thread (Mar 20, 2023 @ 3:39pm)
  • trollhattan on Monday Afternoon Open Thread (Mar 20, 2023 @ 3:38pm)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!