Oh dear, I've still not got round to reading Superfreakonomics – this time it was Michael Sandel's Justice which diverted me, and is certainly the best-written philosophy book I've ever tackled. More on that in another post.

Meanwhile, I have read some reviews of Superfreakonomics, not wildly favourable. The climate change chapter not surprisingly comes in for most ire. John Naughton has written about it in his blog, with links, including Elizabeth Kolbert's New Yorker review. Dubner has responded on the climate change point in the Freakonomics blog. I will make my own mind up but meanwhile am most swayed by Yoram Bauman's (critical) views on the climate change chapter.

This review in Metro caught my eye because what it says about Superfreakonomics was the reason I didn't like the massively best-selling Freakonomics: “Pitched at the type of young,
brash go-getter who would rather
say something provocative on a
subject than something serious, this
book is a depressingly empty exercise
in pop sociology.” I found Freakonomics gimmicky, when economics is a pretty serious subject (despite Stand-Up Economist Yoram Bauman's wonderful achievement in making it both serious and funny at the same time). But when I said so in print somewhere, it was pointed out that I was suffering from an attack of sour grapes as my Sex, Drugs and Economics had its equally frivolous moments but without selling 4m copies. Fair point.

The Guardian's Larry Elliott was a Freakonomics fan but didn't like Superfreakonomics for other reasons: Levitt and Dubner are still too much in favour of markets for his tastes. But the FT's Tim Harford preferred the new title to Freakonomics. So I'll have to get round to reading it for myself. It is in my in-pile, honest.