31 Responses to “Anatomy of a debunking: Caldeira says Superfreakonomics is “damaging to me because it is an inaccurate portrayal of me” and filled with “many” misleading statements. Dubner continues to make false statements, parroted by Pielke and Morano. DeLong urges authors to “abjectly apologize” for the chapter.”
This has been a fascinating account of how information/disinformation winds its way through the publication process. Thanks for keeping on top of this for us.
It is useful to remember that the Superfreaks *had* to be contrarian, since that is the whole point of their book.
They wanted to write about global warming because it is a controversial issue. Because of their contrarian stance, they had to ignore the mainstream scientific consensus and come up with some far-out alternative. They obviously didn’t know much about climate science to begin with, and so they cherry-picked information and quotes that supported their contrarian stance, and ignored all the mainstream science.
This is obviously not the way to write a coherent or useful book. But unfortunately, it does seems to be the way that the publishing industry works.
I appreciate your in-depth treatment of this publishing fiasco. The danger of course is that a William Morrow publisher (which is owned by news corp) has a massive publicity budget and lots of media contacts. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them as guests on the soft news channels. Dubner and Levitt may have lost the argument among academics, but I have a feeling the media will prefer milking the “controversy” for all its worth. (Remember, this a culture which puts Glen Beck on the cover of Time magazine).
Regardless of how Caldeira previewed the galleys, I’m surprised he didn’t examine the chapter more closely. SuperFreakonomics will be read by millions – unlike anything Caldeira’s written. It could have been one of his best opportunities to disseminate his climate-change research.
Say what you will about Dubner and Levitt, but it was never in their best interest to willfully misrepresent Caldeira’s work, since they would have known they’d get caught if they were blatantly lying. Given Caldeira’s opportunity to preview the chapter, he can blame only himself if it misrepresents him.
[JR: Not clear. If they use his statements to draw conclusions opposite to the ones he is trying to advance, what can he do?]
I have to admit that Dubner’s defense posted on his NYTimes blog had me feeling some sympathy for him and thinking maybe you overstated your criticisms, but reading this post has made everything clear. I can’t believe that such influential journalists as Dubner and Levitt could have totally not done their homework on this book.
Did you or did you not try to push Caldeira for your required quote?
[snip]
[JR: I asked him precisely once with a specific quote. After that, after I read the chapter several times, we had a back and forth of several emails where I asked for his comments on various inane and inaccurate statements and the chapter as a whole.
And when Caldeira gave me a quote, I specifically asked him if I could use it. What more can I do as a journalist? That is far more than what most "real" journalists do and Dubner didn't come close to do thing.
I have sat in interviews with leading journalists -- famous ones -- where they ask me the same question in slightly different form literally 8 times to try to get me to say precisely what they want me to say. I didn't do that here at all.]
“I have sat in interviews with leading journalists — famous ones — where they ask me the same question in slightly different form literally 8 times to try to get me to say precisely what they want me to say.”
anyone who has dealt with mass media news recently can verify this. it’s such a common experience stephen cobert & co built part of his show around it: “better know a district.”
The subsequent emails certainly offer some greater context on some of what transpired here.
One bit in the post I don’t understand:
At the bottom of Dr. Caldeira’s October 10th email, he writes: “I do not think my edited version was ever returned to Dubner, not because of ulterior motives, but just because it got lost in the sauce of documents flying around.”
Dr. Romm’s immediately following commentary is: “Ken disagreed with the sentence, communicated it to Nathan. Amazingly, Dubner did get it, but did not make the change.”
Now, if it was an honest mistake, as Dr. Caldeira seems to speculate in his email, that would be very poor, and it seems as if the sentence in the book should be corrected immediately for all future printings.
My question is, are to we interpret Dr. Romm’s commentary as proposing that the email was in fact forwarded to Dubner, and that he ignored it, in contrast to what Dr. Caldeira seems to think happened? If so, is this because of some other information Dr. Romm has that wasn’t included in the blog post?
[JR: Dubner included some of Caldeira's text in the book -- he just didn't drop the sentence that Caldeira objected to because he apparently really wanted that hook.]
You never actually link to or address what Pielke said, or Morano for that matter. For the benefit of you readers I thought you might like to address that, since you attack both of them in the title of your post. What gives?
[JR: I don't generally like to like link to the deniers and delayers and disinformers if I don't have to. They can easily be found with Google. Debunking Dubner covers Pielke and Morano -- fruits of a poisonous tree.]
Dubner is throwing out a very clear red herring. He criticizes Romm by pointing to an email that asks Caldeira to make a statement, as if somehow that discounts the statement made by Caldeira. If someone asked me to say the grass is purple, I’m not going to say that if it’s not true. The bottom line is Dubner and Levitt misrepresented what Caldeira said, and this is a weasely defense by Dubner.
Of course Dubner is focusing on the asking for a quotation non-issue; it’s all he has left–misdirection via an irrelevant detail. Sound like climate change deniers (or contrarians or …)?
I can also say with certainty that “asking for a quote” is perfectly within bounds and common practice. When I was writing for computer magazines I was asked to blurb a few products, and in those cases I wasn’t asked for a quote on a specific point, I was given a quote and asked if they could attribute it to me, clearly a much more extreme situation than anything JR did.
In general, I think what we have here is a case of either very sloppy work on the part of the Superfreakonomics authors, or a blatant attempt to sell books via stirring up controversy. (Which is in itself contrary to the conventional wisdom of succeeding by making the book’s content as accurate and enlightening as possible.) I have no way of telling which it is; right now, all I can see is this being one of those books that has to be debunked about one quadrillion times over the next decade, even as it’s taken as gospel by far too many consumers and voters we need and want to be working with us on this issue.
Be all that as it may Caldeira is in the middle of a brown storm and his only way out is to issue the strongest possible statement with zero room for the weasels.
“Naked Self-Promotion
SuperFreakonomics is out on October 20, and the rave reviews are pouring in. From the Financial Times: “all that needs to be said is that the sequel’s title is an accurate description. This book is a lot like Freakonomics, but better.” The N.Y. Post calls it “magnificent stuff … brave, bracing, and beautifully contrarian.”
…”
The problem with being a contrarian is that you attract all of the misfits and left outs who finally think that they found a champion and a cause. It is so easy to let someone else do your thinking for you… you don’t even know when they are wrong.
Unfortunately, it also allows political opportunists like Meg Whitman to utilize that for perceived political advantage, as when she said that, if elected governor, she would suspend California’s AB 32… an incomplete, inadequate start toward climate change regulation but the best that we have passed so far.
Wes Rolley CoChair, EcoAction Committee Green Party US
Joe, Slightly off topic, but then again…maybe not (think red herring).
While all of this hullabaloo is going on, let’s all not lose sight of the fact that what looks to be the largest global climate rally on the planet is about to take place on this Saturday, October 24th!
Thanks to the thankless, year-long efforts of Bill McKibben and his one-continent-per-person crew at http://www.350.org, nearly 4000 citizen’s climate actions will take place in more than 160 countries as part of Global Climate Action Day. Many other climate heros and organizations are piling on to this phenomenon, including Al Gore, Greenpeace, etc. It’s not too late to join, or start, an action near you, if your on Earth!
This seems like it’s becoming big enough to be worth covering on Climate Progress. Also, a really huge turnout would indeed help climate progress. One worthwhile message is that citizens, at least those who understand what’s going on, want their governments to take more aggressive action to help stem climate change–both at home, and at the upcoming climate talks in Copenhagen.
Let’s all pile on to help the cause. After all, McKibben was one of the key people behind the idea for the massive, March, 2009 Capitol Climate Action in Washington, DC that led to Congress deciding to switch their coal-powered power plant over to (cleaner) natural gas.
Thanks for getting the record out there, Joe. Interesting that Morrow is owned by News Corp.
Am I right in thinking that the book was somewhat framed around the title in a misleading way to get some sales and puffery…. the global cooling in the title refers to geo-engineering but could come up in a search if you are looking at a book about (debunked) global cooling vs. global warming. ?
It’s going to be interesting to see how all of this plays out in terms of MSM coverage and book sales. We have a clear case of right and wrong when it comes to scientific evidence and journalistic integrity.
If the Steves go on the talk shows and get thrown a lot of softballs, we’ll get a good idea of where this is all going to end up. I’m not holding my breath when it comes to Regis etc, but maybe the late night guys or even Oprah can figure out the truth and take a stand on it.
Mark, the index sez that the .jpg was created 9/18. The denialists no longer mention SLR, as it refutes their worldview and the rate of increase is very inconvenient to any…erm…”argument” they cut-paste.
Hi all. I think it’s great to examine and debunk this book, of course.
Yet, I’d like to point something out.
In recent days, people (here and elsewhere) have been debunking this book. And, much of the mainstream media is shining light on the (much less important) balloon deception, for what that’s worth.
But at the same time, the most profitable company in the U.S., and one of the two largest oil companies on the planet (whose products generate well over one trillion pounds of CO2 annually, when used, based on my estimates), makes confusing, misleading, narrow (and out of context) statements, and tries to “sell” irresponsible decisions, to the public every week, often in The New York Times and on major TV channels. They also talk out of both sides of their mouths and so forth. And where is the spotlight? Where is the debunking? Where is the responsible coverage, in the media or elsewhere?
Even though Superfreakonomics will be a big seller and generate media attention, and so it’s vital to debunk, the messages of ExxonMobil and the API are even much larger and more continuous in scale, and more confusing. Let’s not leave “what whole thing” unexamined, or underexamined, or undebunked or under-debunked.
Joe, well done on your efforts in debunking this book. It is a great compliment that Krugman paid you. As one of your regular readers I agree with him (while still reading what you write critically as I am sure he does). The normal high quality and number of your posts amazes me.
I tried to read Freakonomics on Leavitt’s work a couple of years ago, and put it down after 20 pages due to its to me suffocating sense of self-satisfaction, as well as its being hard to follow.
But it did purport to be about that sometimes previously seen-to-be opaque cause and effect in matters of public concern – such as that to do with the rise and decrease of the crack cocaine trade – could be evaluated.
But then, as Brad DeLong states, in their new book, they quoted approvingly this, from Boris Johnson (always alarm bells when Boris pronounces, anyway):”The fear of climate change is like a religion in this vital sense, that it is veiled in mystery, and you can never tell whether your acts of propitiation or atonement have been in any way successful.’
This seems so precisely counter to the successful evaluation of sometimes previously opaque cause and effect in matters of public concern that,noting they clearly do not understand global warming – I now wonder if they even understand their own work.
The Union of Concerned Scientists has commented -very critically (”grossly mischaracterizes climate science”) – on the book’s discussion of climate change
I’m ususally in your corner, Eli, but this time I think Caldeira should be Caldeira. So far, he’s responded very honestly and forthrightly – did a better job, as Michael Tobis has mentioned, and I’ve discussed with him, than Wunsch or Schneider, e.g.
And Wunsch’s quavery, ambiguous objections to the GGWS really helped sink it. Caldeira’s much, much more blunt in his scientist hedging way. This book may actually sink, and sink Levitt and Dubner with it.
If I put out a book called “Thrive in the Recession by converting stray pets to fur and food products because business is our business and the market is always right” the Financial Times and the NY Post would call it the best book of the year. Or the NY Post would say “after the Bible.”
This has been a fascinating account of how information/disinformation winds its way through the publication process. Thanks for keeping on top of this for us.
It is useful to remember that the Superfreaks *had* to be contrarian, since that is the whole point of their book.
They wanted to write about global warming because it is a controversial issue. Because of their contrarian stance, they had to ignore the mainstream scientific consensus and come up with some far-out alternative. They obviously didn’t know much about climate science to begin with, and so they cherry-picked information and quotes that supported their contrarian stance, and ignored all the mainstream science.
This is obviously not the way to write a coherent or useful book. But unfortunately, it does seems to be the way that the publishing industry works.
I appreciate your in-depth treatment of this publishing fiasco. The danger of course is that a William Morrow publisher (which is owned by news corp) has a massive publicity budget and lots of media contacts. I wouldn’t be surprised to see them as guests on the soft news channels. Dubner and Levitt may have lost the argument among academics, but I have a feeling the media will prefer milking the “controversy” for all its worth. (Remember, this a culture which puts Glen Beck on the cover of Time magazine).
A soundbite you should add to the “Recognition” sidebar:
“I trust Joe Romm on climate”
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/ 2009/ 10/ 16/ a-counterintuitive-train-wreck/
Roger Pielke Jr. is so consistently dishonest. It’s just amazing.
I’m a portuguese economist and I concur with Krugman whem he says”: I trust Joe Romm on climate”
Regardless of how Caldeira previewed the galleys, I’m surprised he didn’t examine the chapter more closely. SuperFreakonomics will be read by millions – unlike anything Caldeira’s written. It could have been one of his best opportunities to disseminate his climate-change research.
Say what you will about Dubner and Levitt, but it was never in their best interest to willfully misrepresent Caldeira’s work, since they would have known they’d get caught if they were blatantly lying. Given Caldeira’s opportunity to preview the chapter, he can blame only himself if it misrepresents him.
[JR: Not clear. If they use his statements to draw conclusions opposite to the ones he is trying to advance, what can he do?]
Bravo Joe!
I have to admit that Dubner’s defense posted on his NYTimes blog had me feeling some sympathy for him and thinking maybe you overstated your criticisms, but reading this post has made everything clear. I can’t believe that such influential journalists as Dubner and Levitt could have totally not done their homework on this book.
Keep it up!
Did you or did you not try to push Caldeira for your required quote?
[snip]
[JR: I asked him precisely once with a specific quote. After that, after I read the chapter several times, we had a back and forth of several emails where I asked for his comments on various inane and inaccurate statements and the chapter as a whole.
And when Caldeira gave me a quote, I specifically asked him if I could use it. What more can I do as a journalist? That is far more than what most "real" journalists do and Dubner didn't come close to do thing.
I have sat in interviews with leading journalists -- famous ones -- where they ask me the same question in slightly different form literally 8 times to try to get me to say precisely what they want me to say. I didn't do that here at all.]
“I have sat in interviews with leading journalists — famous ones — where they ask me the same question in slightly different form literally 8 times to try to get me to say precisely what they want me to say.”
anyone who has dealt with mass media news recently can verify this. it’s such a common experience stephen cobert & co built part of his show around it: “better know a district.”
The subsequent emails certainly offer some greater context on some of what transpired here.
One bit in the post I don’t understand:
At the bottom of Dr. Caldeira’s October 10th email, he writes: “I do not think my edited version was ever returned to Dubner, not because of ulterior motives, but just because it got lost in the sauce of documents flying around.”
Dr. Romm’s immediately following commentary is: “Ken disagreed with the sentence, communicated it to Nathan. Amazingly, Dubner did get it, but did not make the change.”
Now, if it was an honest mistake, as Dr. Caldeira seems to speculate in his email, that would be very poor, and it seems as if the sentence in the book should be corrected immediately for all future printings.
My question is, are to we interpret Dr. Romm’s commentary as proposing that the email was in fact forwarded to Dubner, and that he ignored it, in contrast to what Dr. Caldeira seems to think happened? If so, is this because of some other information Dr. Romm has that wasn’t included in the blog post?
[JR: Dubner included some of Caldeira's text in the book -- he just didn't drop the sentence that Caldeira objected to because he apparently really wanted that hook.]
Joe,
You never actually link to or address what Pielke said, or Morano for that matter. For the benefit of you readers I thought you might like to address that, since you attack both of them in the title of your post. What gives?
[JR: I don't generally like to like link to the deniers and delayers and disinformers if I don't have to. They can easily be found with Google. Debunking Dubner covers Pielke and Morano -- fruits of a poisonous tree.]
Dubner is throwing out a very clear red herring. He criticizes Romm by pointing to an email that asks Caldeira to make a statement, as if somehow that discounts the statement made by Caldeira. If someone asked me to say the grass is purple, I’m not going to say that if it’s not true. The bottom line is Dubner and Levitt misrepresented what Caldeira said, and this is a weasely defense by Dubner.
FYI to all – I’ve created a SourceWatch page for Caldeira, documenting the cases of misrepresentation that I’m aware of; if you’d care to improve it…?
(and “Joe”#12, you do remind me of “Steve”.)
Of course Dubner is focusing on the asking for a quotation non-issue; it’s all he has left–misdirection via an irrelevant detail. Sound like climate change deniers (or contrarians or …)?
I can also say with certainty that “asking for a quote” is perfectly within bounds and common practice. When I was writing for computer magazines I was asked to blurb a few products, and in those cases I wasn’t asked for a quote on a specific point, I was given a quote and asked if they could attribute it to me, clearly a much more extreme situation than anything JR did.
In general, I think what we have here is a case of either very sloppy work on the part of the Superfreakonomics authors, or a blatant attempt to sell books via stirring up controversy. (Which is in itself contrary to the conventional wisdom of succeeding by making the book’s content as accurate and enlightening as possible.) I have no way of telling which it is; right now, all I can see is this being one of those books that has to be debunked about one quadrillion times over the next decade, even as it’s taken as gospel by far too many consumers and voters we need and want to be working with us on this issue.
Be all that as it may Caldeira is in the middle of a brown storm and his only way out is to issue the strongest possible statement with zero room for the weasels.
[JR: Not his style, but you never know.]
On the Freakonomics blog’s sidebar today:
“Naked Self-Promotion
SuperFreakonomics is out on October 20, and the rave reviews are pouring in. From the Financial Times: “all that needs to be said is that the sequel’s title is an accurate description. This book is a lot like Freakonomics, but better.” The N.Y. Post calls it “magnificent stuff … brave, bracing, and beautifully contrarian.”
…”
Earth to Levitt and Dubner…
The problem with being a contrarian is that you attract all of the misfits and left outs who finally think that they found a champion and a cause. It is so easy to let someone else do your thinking for you… you don’t even know when they are wrong.
Unfortunately, it also allows political opportunists like Meg Whitman to utilize that for perceived political advantage, as when she said that, if elected governor, she would suspend California’s AB 32… an incomplete, inadequate start toward climate change regulation but the best that we have passed so far.
Wes Rolley CoChair, EcoAction Committee Green Party US
Joe, Slightly off topic, but then again…maybe not (think red herring).
While all of this hullabaloo is going on, let’s all not lose sight of the fact that what looks to be the largest global climate rally on the planet is about to take place on this Saturday, October 24th!
Thanks to the thankless, year-long efforts of Bill McKibben and his one-continent-per-person crew at http://www.350.org, nearly 4000 citizen’s climate actions will take place in more than 160 countries as part of Global Climate Action Day. Many other climate heros and organizations are piling on to this phenomenon, including Al Gore, Greenpeace, etc. It’s not too late to join, or start, an action near you, if your on Earth!
This seems like it’s becoming big enough to be worth covering on Climate Progress. Also, a really huge turnout would indeed help climate progress. One worthwhile message is that citizens, at least those who understand what’s going on, want their governments to take more aggressive action to help stem climate change–both at home, and at the upcoming climate talks in Copenhagen.
Let’s all pile on to help the cause. After all, McKibben was one of the key people behind the idea for the massive, March, 2009 Capitol Climate Action in Washington, DC that led to Congress deciding to switch their coal-powered power plant over to (cleaner) natural gas.
Thanks for getting the record out there, Joe. Interesting that Morrow is owned by News Corp.
Am I right in thinking that the book was somewhat framed around the title in a misleading way to get some sales and puffery…. the global cooling in the title refers to geo-engineering but could come up in a search if you are looking at a book about (debunked) global cooling vs. global warming. ?
In other news, global sea level reaches new heights. Data I think is through June, 2009. Don’t expect deniers to be doing a post on this.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/current/sl_ib_ns_global.jpg
It’s going to be interesting to see how all of this plays out in terms of MSM coverage and book sales. We have a clear case of right and wrong when it comes to scientific evidence and journalistic integrity.
If the Steves go on the talk shows and get thrown a lot of softballs, we’ll get a good idea of where this is all going to end up. I’m not holding my breath when it comes to Regis etc, but maybe the late night guys or even Oprah can figure out the truth and take a stand on it.
I just hope this isn’t too much to expect.
Mark, the index sez that the .jpg was created 9/18. The denialists no longer mention SLR, as it refutes their worldview and the rate of increase is very inconvenient to any…erm…”argument” they cut-paste.
Best,
D
More Light Needed
Hi all. I think it’s great to examine and debunk this book, of course.
Yet, I’d like to point something out.
In recent days, people (here and elsewhere) have been debunking this book. And, much of the mainstream media is shining light on the (much less important) balloon deception, for what that’s worth.
But at the same time, the most profitable company in the U.S., and one of the two largest oil companies on the planet (whose products generate well over one trillion pounds of CO2 annually, when used, based on my estimates), makes confusing, misleading, narrow (and out of context) statements, and tries to “sell” irresponsible decisions, to the public every week, often in The New York Times and on major TV channels. They also talk out of both sides of their mouths and so forth. And where is the spotlight? Where is the debunking? Where is the responsible coverage, in the media or elsewhere?
Even though Superfreakonomics will be a big seller and generate media attention, and so it’s vital to debunk, the messages of ExxonMobil and the API are even much larger and more continuous in scale, and more confusing. Let’s not leave “what whole thing” unexamined, or underexamined, or undebunked or under-debunked.
Cheers,
Jeff
I couldn’t finish this article…though I’d read the earlier Parts.
Bravo that you have the stomach to return to the details…but I don’t.
Certainly Dubner and Leavitt had aimed higher. But I think pages 186-187 leave them on the same library shelf with the sillier of the skeptic books.
Joe, well done on your efforts in debunking this book. It is a great compliment that Krugman paid you. As one of your regular readers I agree with him (while still reading what you write critically as I am sure he does). The normal high quality and number of your posts amazes me.
I tried to read Freakonomics on Leavitt’s work a couple of years ago, and put it down after 20 pages due to its to me suffocating sense of self-satisfaction, as well as its being hard to follow.
But it did purport to be about that sometimes previously seen-to-be opaque cause and effect in matters of public concern – such as that to do with the rise and decrease of the crack cocaine trade – could be evaluated.
But then, as Brad DeLong states, in their new book, they quoted approvingly this, from Boris Johnson (always alarm bells when Boris pronounces, anyway):”The fear of climate change is like a religion in this vital sense, that it is veiled in mystery, and you can never tell whether your acts of propitiation or atonement have been in any way successful.’
This seems so precisely counter to the successful evaluation of sometimes previously opaque cause and effect in matters of public concern that,noting they clearly do not understand global warming – I now wonder if they even understand their own work.
The Union of Concerned Scientists has commented -very critically (”grossly mischaracterizes climate science”) – on the book’s discussion of climate change
http://www.ucsusa.org/ global_warming/ science_and_impacts/ global_warming_contrarians/ book-superfreakonomics.html
Their discussion of the chapter is also available at amazon.com, under customer discussions
Joe, the comment function on ‘Energy and Global Warming News for October 19′ seems not to work (comment is accepted, but not displayed).
I’m ususally in your corner, Eli, but this time I think Caldeira should be Caldeira. So far, he’s responded very honestly and forthrightly – did a better job, as Michael Tobis has mentioned, and I’ve discussed with him, than Wunsch or Schneider, e.g.
And Wunsch’s quavery, ambiguous objections to the GGWS really helped sink it. Caldeira’s much, much more blunt in his scientist hedging way. This book may actually sink, and sink Levitt and Dubner with it.
If I put out a book called “Thrive in the Recession by converting stray pets to fur and food products because business is our business and the market is always right” the Financial Times and the NY Post would call it the best book of the year. Or the NY Post would say “after the Bible.”