I loved the first book. Having just finished Superfreakonomics, I can only remember two things about it.
The first is the in depth coverage of hookers which I found educational and entertaining. In my opinion this part is the best of the book and I consider it the sequel to the gang information in Freakonomics.
The second is the total 180 from most scientists on global warming and carbon dioxide's role it in. I am a skeptic and something about this felt off. The topic follows mainly the works of Nathan Myhrvold, formally of Microsoft, who advocates 'geo-engineering' and the science of Ken Caldeira. Nathan probably forgot all the times Microsoft patched a complex system which fixed the initial problem but caused other problems. He has the same approach to climate change and Levitt and Dubner seem to take it at face value without researching the pros and cons. Complex systems don't always respond to "cheap and simple fixes" in predictable ways. It feels like the authors were looking for major topics where they could argue against the mainstream. If you research online, you'll find that Ken Caldeira even claims that the book gets his views and opinions wrong.
I now wonder if any of the other research in the book is accurate. If I would have read more online reviews about the book I probably wouldn't have purchased it.
Report Inappropriate Content