Debunking SuperFreakonomics
Have contrarian authors Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner gone too far with their take on global warming?
SuperFreakonomics is causing an uproar (HarperCollins)
"Everybody loves a contrarian take," said Stephan Faris in True/Slant, "but given the long history of misinformation on the subject of climate change," do we really need another pot shot at the science of global warming? The popular answer appears to be that we don't, judging by the withering criticism of SuperFreakonomics, the follow-up to the popular Freakonomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. Their biggest error may be their flip tone—the chapter on global warming begins with a comparison to the 1970s global cooling scare, but it seems odd to compare a looming global disaster to "a false alarm."
Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner should "abjectly apologize," said economist Brad DeLong in his blog, and then edit the global warming chapter of SuperFreakonomics. Eliminating the comparison between 1970s "global cooling" and global warming is a good place to start. And they should change or remove several false claims, including the line about how climate expert Ken Caldeira's research tells him, as Levitt and Dubner put it, that "carbon dioxide is not the right villain in this fight."
If we really did distort the views of a top climate scientist, said SuperFreakonomics co-author Stephen Dubner in The New York Times, "I would come after us with pitchforks too." But Ken Caldeira doesn't dispute our facts, although he does think the "villain" line overstates his position. Hopefully, after the book comes out this week, we can start debating something real—like whether we're "too pessimistic" about how much incentives to reduce carbon dioxide emissions will help against global warming—instead of trying to correct distortions of our work.
Show: Oldest | Newest
12 Comments
Posted by Mike, Monday, October 19, 2009, 10:29 am The simple truth is that no matter the truth of manmade global warming, a hell of a lot of the evidence has been fabricated by a small group of self reviewing scientists who seem to think the rules of science can be moulded to suit the current political ideology.I may be mistaken, but we are supposed to be 30 into this global warming and the impact is so small it can hardly be measured without world class equipment.And when the forecasters can't even predict a few months ahead, let alone a whole year, let alone a decade of cooling ....
Posted by Chris Versa, Monday, October 19, 2009, 11:32 am How can we get unbiased facts with all the funding going to the prowarming lobby? Global warming is indeed becoming a new fanatical religion and needs to be tempered with some hard facts or at the very least something like SuperFreakonomics which makes us all think outside the box. The last time we took a major government spin as gospel we became embroiled in the Iraq invasion weapons of mass destruction...respected intelegence...respected scientists etc. Time for some joined up thinking not government Spin
Posted by Parah Salin, Monday, October 19, 2009, 11:54 am Contrary to the two previous posts, the evidence is there, it's hard, and it's not being spun by the government. The Bush admin actually forced a lot of the climate reports to be softened in their tone. As for evidence, go to any glacier you like, anywhere in the world, and ask where it was 20 years ago. Or go to the Arctic Circle, and ask what happened to all of the ice that used to be there. Look at storm patterns, crop displacements, pest expansion, all sorts of things. Just because you don't want to believe something doesn't make it wrong.
Posted by Mark, Monday, October 19, 2009, 2:33 pm Does it matter if it was wrong or right? It has gotten everyone to start thinking about the environment in ways we never have before, and pushed ecotechnology in ways it never would have otherwise. I agree, the big picture is definately sketchy. Glaciers are definitely melting, but I agree that scientists have a hard time predicting weather a week out let alone over the next couple years to a decade, but isn't it a good thing that we're replanting our forests, eliminating CFC's, and cutting carbon emissions no matter what?
Posted by Get Over Yourselves, Monday, October 19, 2009, 2:43 pm Those first two posts actually made me laugh, but they shouldn't. Those ways of thinking, though ridiculous, are widespread and dangerous, in that they discount the very real effects of burning carbonbased material and the way the resultant gases trap sunlight radiated from Earth as infrared. Like a greenhouse! Imagine that. Refuting the basic fundamentals of global warming is like impugning the very existence of the basic ways a greenhouse for plants works. Any scientist would be empirically forced to agree with these central tenets.
Posted by anon, Monday, October 19, 2009, 2:48 pm Romm made up the Caldeira issue. It is simply false, he knew it, and did it anyways for the sake of his political ambitions.He says he has an acronym for skeptics, FAKERS, well I have one for him, LIAR.
Posted by Earl_E, Monday, October 19, 2009, 2:58 pm Over half of manmade warming does not come from CO2. CO2 also will kill off shell life in most oceans in the next century. Not that I like seafood anyway.
Posted by NDLily, Monday, October 19, 2009, 3:49 pm The immediate dangers are overshadowed by what does amount to a questionable science with much to gain monetarily by seeming to be right. Meanwhile, populations soar, no one has a solution for industrializing countries so they can prosper and not pollute, drinkable water diminishes, and we still pave over farmland to build minimallssome of the undeniable problems But all these get tied back to global warming, so people like Al Gore make money, deniers can bury their heads in the sand, and the rest can feel better by changing our lightbulbs.
Post a Comment