Take a photo of a barcode or cover
funny
informative
reflective
medium-paced
This is a good book and an interesting read. Some parts are good.
But seems more like a movie franchise where a Part II is made to capitalize on the success of part I. Quick and fun read if thats what you are looking for but not even close in details and analysis as Freakonomics.
But seems more like a movie franchise where a Part II is made to capitalize on the success of part I. Quick and fun read if thats what you are looking for but not even close in details and analysis as Freakonomics.
I think these books should be required reading. They always teach me something new, and usually turn what I know to be true upside down.
This would be 4 stars if it weren't for several glaring inaccurate statements. In a general-audience book like this, there is a tendency to have less proof rather than more, and I usually tend to give them the benefit of the doubt if they provide references to the actual scientific research papers. In this case they provided references for their major points, which were interesting and controversial enough. But this didn't seem sufficient for the authors—I guess they decided that the more controversial the better, and stuffed the book with random unsupported statements that seem to contradict what is usually considered common knowledge. Except some of these statements are so obviously bogus that it makes me seriously doubt the authors' credibility.
Apparently using solar power makes climate change worse. Why? Because the solar panels are dark and will absorb sunlight and disperse it as heat energy, increasing global warming. Really? They're dark compared to what? Tar covered roofs? This is such obvious bull crap that I don't even have to do any outside verification. Another claim they made is that one of the lead scientists in the climate change camp stated that carbon emissions were not the main culprit. Really? If he's saying something completely contradictory to the climate change guys, why do they consider him as one of the prominent scientists on their side in the first place? I looked this up and apparently this scientist felt that the authors of this book misquoted him, and demanded that they remove that quote. And there were more statements of the “everything you think you know is wrong” variety. Since no evidence was provided, it only made it seem like the authors are desperately trying to make themselves look extra clever.
Apparently using solar power makes climate change worse. Why? Because the solar panels are dark and will absorb sunlight and disperse it as heat energy, increasing global warming. Really? They're dark compared to what? Tar covered roofs? This is such obvious bull crap that I don't even have to do any outside verification. Another claim they made is that one of the lead scientists in the climate change camp stated that carbon emissions were not the main culprit. Really? If he's saying something completely contradictory to the climate change guys, why do they consider him as one of the prominent scientists on their side in the first place? I looked this up and apparently this scientist felt that the authors of this book misquoted him, and demanded that they remove that quote. And there were more statements of the “everything you think you know is wrong” variety. Since no evidence was provided, it only made it seem like the authors are desperately trying to make themselves look extra clever.
informative
medium-paced
I love these guys - each time I've finished one of their books, I think to myself. "Why the heck did I wait so long to read this?"
Although I didn't agree with everything the authors were saying, I found this book to be both very entertaining and informative. I wouldn't base anything that I believe on the "facts" that the authors put forth but it is something that makes one think. Really, I feel that there are so many sides to the issues that are raised here but the authors tend to only focus on one side but act like those other sides don't exist. But even though there were shortcomings, it still was very very interesting. I would read a third book in a heartbeat.
I’ve read Freakenomics, so it was only logical that I read the second edition of the series. Some of it was ok, but I felt like the first book had more mind-boggling facts, whereas this one seemed to be the things that didn’t quite make the cut for the first book. It had its moments, but it seemed to get a bit bogged down with the authors endless opinion, instead of interesting anecdotes and facts and statistics. It was just ok.
They did it again. I'm not sure where they find this information and how they even begin to come up with it to research but it is always fascinating and a conversation starter.