Re:Error-riddled ‘Superfreakonomics’, Part 2: With takedown ...
by tlb on Saturday October 17, 2009 @08:54PM
(#887717)
This chain of reasoning:
we discover more oil => we burn more fossil fuels =>
=> global temperatures increase => poor people starve
is very tenuous. Discovering more oil is mainly bad for people that already own major oil reserves, and they lobby subtly for peak oil & carbon caps. More oil discoveries probably don't cause major increases in the amount consumed.
Burning fossil fuels may cause global warming, or may not, or it may be easy to fix by adding some dust to the upper atmosphere. Most people seem to accept it as an article of faith either way.
Global temperature increases may cause a reduction in food supply, or an increase. Certainly much of northern China will increase food production with a longer growing season. It probably increases ocean fish yields too. So it's very debatable as to the net effect.
Anyway, a claim depending on 3 somewhat dubious claims is extremely dubious. Maybe you believe each has a 75% chance of being true, but then all 3 have only a 42% chance of being true, so I'm assuming it's false.
Burning fossil fuels may cause global warming, or may not, or it may be easy to fix by adding some dust to the upper atmosphere. Most people seem to accept it as an article of faith either way.
Global temperature increases may cause a reduction in food supply, or an increase. Certainly much of northern China will increase food production with a longer growing season. It probably increases ocean fish yields too. So it's very debatable as to the net effect.
Anyway, a claim depending on 3 somewhat dubious claims is extremely dubious. Maybe you believe each has a 75% chance of being true, but then all 3 have only a 42% chance of being true, so I'm assuming it's false.