By Felix Salmon
October 16, 2009

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">


Error-riddled “Superfreakonomics” — Climate Progress. The complaints ring true to me.

Why business media has to be very big or very small. — The Deal

A nuanced appreciation of Bruce Wasserstein — TED

Why the wrong person always wins — TNR

The Washington Post Has the Worst Opinion Section in America — Gawker

Why works of conceptual art have an inherent investment risk — NYT

Tullett Prebon’s BlackBerry burners — Guardian

The crazy story of Nicholas Bolton, the seemingly-idiotic Australian kid who ended up making millions — Greenbackd

Trust and Delegation — SSRN. As written up in the FT.

Danish workaholics — Jon Lund

Ads disappear from the Daily Mail’s exercise in homophobic hatemongering — Media Blog

A small, realistic painting of NYT op ed columnist David Brooks, by young American artist Matthew Cerletty — Jenbee

“We’re not looking interested in digging up private details about private citizens,” lies Gawker, stalking Goldmanites — Gawker


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see

” In fact, human-caused global warming is well-established science, ”

Why does every debate on this subject start with this line? It may be true, but it feels likes an attempt to make a truth by repetition. Few people understand the science, and of those that do, there are plenty who do not like having the ‘settled science’ argument limit debate.

The reason if feels like a religion, is the arguments are personal attacks, and quotes that feel out of context.

For the religious of those of you out there, I am probably a heretic for merely disliking the discourse.

Posted by Bob Goodwin | Report as abusive

The heat created from solar energy by solar cells would be reradiated back into space, and therefore increases temperature in the short-term; removing the cells would cause the temperature to decrease again, but would not undo the benefit of reduced carbon emission. The effect of the carbon dioxide on the equilibrium temperature of the earth is likely to be far higher. This is explained by a scientist who writes in after the fact; the author originally seems to miss it.

ClimateProgress does, however, label as “howlers” two and a half points that involve the at-best uncharitable reading that instead of saying “Here’s an example from solar power,” he’s saying “Every conceivable form of solar power is an example.” The only remaining “howler” is, in fact, pants-wettingly comic, but only as committed by ClimateProgress. “Actually, state of the art only converts 82% of the energy directly into heat” is something I would expect from a Simpsons’ character; cf. “Actually, I did my thesis on life experience.” The children are right to laugh at you, Ralph.