Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
science fiction replacing science fact
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Jet Foncannon
Dec 22, 2009, 1:14:14 AM12/22/09
to
The link
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/11/16/091116crbo_books_kolbert
<http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/11/16/091116crbo_books_kolbert>
contains a review by Elizabeth Kolbert of the book "Superfreakonomics"
by Levitt and Dubner. It's scathing, funny, and on target. The book
lambastes mere scientists, who muddle around and don't come to any
reasonable conclusions, and argues that they should be replaced by hard
thinking economist types. Kolbert points out, accurately, that the
authors know nothing about science, in particular, climate science. The
schemes they propose (carbon eating trees, cloud making machinery, six
mile long hoses that shoot sulfur into the sky) are sad diversions
from what is actually required--- quite a lot from each of us--- and,
if implemented, would replace an already existing tragedy with one
magnitudes greater. The schemes offer an illusory sense of safety,
implying that we can continue as we are, and then when the toll exacted
by climate change becomes too onerous we can invoke one of the authors'
loony suggestions. The implication is that in the meantime it's ok to
do nothing.
I laughed twice out loud reading the review You will, too.
The review mentions, unflatteringly, Freeman Dyson's views on coping
with climate change. This, indeed, accurately assesses the Dyson I
know. Dyson is a personable guy, but he should stick to quantum
mechanics. We attended a conference at Arizona State University several
years ago and were eating together when we were approached by a graduate
student who asked Freeman whether he would deliver an ad hoc address
concerning some hot button political issue. Regrettably, Freeman
accepted. Although I was in agreement with his ideas, his presentation
was an embarrassment: full of irrelevancies, poorly thought out. I
was cringing in my seat. As Kolbert points out, his views of climate
change are characteristically out to lunch.
<http://www.newyorker.com/services/referral?messageKey=b7754f28ed44531b0bae9942db5f70a4>
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/11/16/091116crbo_books_kolbert
<http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2009/11/16/091116crbo_books_kolbert>
contains a review by Elizabeth Kolbert of the book "Superfreakonomics"
by Levitt and Dubner. It's scathing, funny, and on target. The book
lambastes mere scientists, who muddle around and don't come to any
reasonable conclusions, and argues that they should be replaced by hard
thinking economist types. Kolbert points out, accurately, that the
authors know nothing about science, in particular, climate science. The
schemes they propose (carbon eating trees, cloud making machinery, six
mile long hoses that shoot sulfur into the sky) are sad diversions
from what is actually required--- quite a lot from each of us--- and,
if implemented, would replace an already existing tragedy with one
magnitudes greater. The schemes offer an illusory sense of safety,
implying that we can continue as we are, and then when the toll exacted
by climate change becomes too onerous we can invoke one of the authors'
loony suggestions. The implication is that in the meantime it's ok to
do nothing.
I laughed twice out loud reading the review You will, too.
The review mentions, unflatteringly, Freeman Dyson's views on coping
with climate change. This, indeed, accurately assesses the Dyson I
know. Dyson is a personable guy, but he should stick to quantum
mechanics. We attended a conference at Arizona State University several
years ago and were eating together when we were approached by a graduate
student who asked Freeman whether he would deliver an ad hoc address
concerning some hot button political issue. Regrettably, Freeman
accepted. Although I was in agreement with his ideas, his presentation
was an embarrassment: full of irrelevancies, poorly thought out. I
was cringing in my seat. As Kolbert points out, his views of climate
change are characteristically out to lunch.
<http://www.newyorker.com/services/referral?messageKey=b7754f28ed44531b0bae9942db5f70a4>
_______________________________________________
Skeptix mailing list
Ske...@lists.opn.org
http://www.lists.opn.org/mailman/listinfo/skeptix_lists.opn.org
0 new messages