“A Headline That Will Make Global-Warming Activists Apoplectic” . . . how’s that one going, Freakonomics team? — Andrew Gelman

Andrew Gelman pillories Freakonomics.

P.P.S. At this point you might ask why are we picking on Freakonomics? Nobody cares about them anymore! Shouldn’t we be writing about Al Sharpton or Ted Cruz or whoever else happens to be polluting the public discourse? Or recent Ted talk sensations? Sleep is your superpower! Or we could see what’s been published lately in Perspectives on Psychological Science . . . that’s always always good for a laugh, or a cry. Or maybe the pizzagate guy or the disgraced primatologist are up to no good again? Well, we do pick on all those people too. But I don’t want to forget Freakonomics, as it’s been a model for much of the coverage of science and economics in the prestige media during the past fifteen years. And, yeah, I’m angry when they unleash their corporate-populist shtick to promote fringe science and when they don’t take the opportunity to confront their past errors (a problem that is not unique to them). I hate that this sort of drive-by commentary is a template for so much of our science and economics reporting, and one reason I pick on the Freaknomics people is that They. Could. Easily. Do. Much. Better. If. They. Only. Felt. Like. Doing. So. But, hey, instead they can “make global-warming activists apoplectic”! Why promote science when you can instead be a “rogue” and own the libs? Let’s keep our priorities straight here, guys.

Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science
“A Headline That Will Make Global-Warming Activists Apoplectic” . . . how’s that one going, Freakonomics team?
Andrew Gelman | Professor of Statistics and Political Science and Director of the Applied Statistics Center, Columbia University