David Roberts did a quick interview with Senator Mark Udall, and as you could probably guess, I think you should go read it.

This is excellent journalism:

In a blind test, the AP gave temperature data to four independent statisticians and asked them to look for trends, without telling them what the numbers represented. The experts found no true temperature declines over time.

“If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a micro-trend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect,” said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina.

The piece continues:

“The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record,” said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. “Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming.”

The AP sent expert statisticians NOAA’s year-to-year ground temperature changes over 130 years and the 30 years of satellite-measured temperatures preferred by skeptics and gathered by scientists at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Statisticians who analyzed the data found a distinct decades-long upward trend in the numbers, but could not find a significant drop in the past 10 years in either data set. The ups and downs during the last decade repeat random variability in data as far back as 1880.

Thank you, Seth Borenstein, for this top-notch article.

More on this from A. Siegel, Matt Yglesias David Roberts and Brendan Demelle

Mr. Levitt and Mr. Dubner:

When Paul Krugman, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Joseph Romm, Bradford Delong, Brad Johnson, Matt Yglesias, Melanie Fitzpatrick, David Roberts, Tim Lambert, Felix Salmon, Corbin Hiar, William Connelly, Oliver Willis, Scott Lemieux, Ezra Klein, Daniel Davies, Brian Dupuis, and Mark Thoma have all published scathing criticisms of your book — several days before the book is actually released — something has gone terribly wrong. I mean, wow.

And while most who argue against meaningful action on climate change limit themselves to disputing either the science or the economics, you have apparently accepted no such limitations.  Perhaps if you had limited your arguments to one of these angles or the other you wouldn’t have made so many egregious factual errors.

But perhaps this was all just a clever marketing ploy.  I can’t help but wonder if chapter five was deliberately crafted to cause an uproar.  Some sort of hail mary attempt to draw attention to an otherwise less-than-spectacular book.  If this is the case — and you truly have adopted the ‘all news is good news’ mantra — then I guess congratulations are in order.  Your book is almost as relevant as the balloon boy.

P.S. This is not fooling anyone.

Here is the chapter everyone is so upset about:

Superfreakonomics –

Here is the transcript, via Grist:

Introduction: Greetings! I want to take just a few minutes to answer some questions from David Roberts from Grist. Now, David has some questions about our upcoming climate legislation.

Q: The first is: What are the most important ways to strengthen the climate bill that came out of the House?

A: Well, the first key thing is to strengthen the pollution-reduction target. We need to have at least a 20 percent reduction by 2020. Second is, we really need to focus on reducing the most polluting technologies, such as the current use of dirty coal technology. Third, we need to improve the integrity of our offsets. And fourth, we need to reduce the temptations to have speculation enter in to the trading regime. So those are all ways that we need to strengthen the legislation from the House.

Q: And the second question from David is: Is there any policy or provision in the climate bill that can serve as a rallying point for progressive organizing and advocacy?

A: Certainly I think one key thing that I would encourage folks to focus on is renewable energy standard. Because this is really about substituting green renewable energy, wind, and wave, and solar and geothermal, for the carbon-based energy that we are currently using. Right now, we are bringing a lot of fossil energy out of the ground. We’re burning it, it creates carbon dioxide; we break that through these renewable energies. Having a very strong standard, and implementing it as quickly as possible, would be a huge rallying point that would create not only a lot of clean energy, but a tremendous number of clean energy jobs which would be great for recovering our economy, and strengthening the financial foundation of our families.

Conclusion: So I want to thank David for his questions, and thank all of you for caring so much about the stewardship of our planet, about the reduction of our dependence on foreign oil, and about creating a strong clean economy. Thank you.

From Grist.

Find more videos at EnviroKnow TV.