The forthcoming SuperFreakonomics, written by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, plays fast and loose with the scientific consensus on climate change. The book's fifth chapter, "Global Cooling," revisits a number of discredited arguments that misinform readers about the danger unchecked global warming poses to the United States and the world.
The authors also gloss over solutions available now that could help reduce global warming and instead promote a futuristic technology that makes for an interesting read, but, unfortunately, would do nothing to cut pollution now.
Muddling Climate Science
Excess carbon dioxide from burning gas in cars and coal in power plants and destroying tropical forests has increased carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere to levels unseen in millions of years and is largely to blame for the increase in global average temperature scientists have measured over the past century.
As the authors ably explain, damage from carbon dioxide production is an economic externality, something one person or one business does that affects everyone else in the world. But strangely, the authors spend a great deal of the chapter seemingly defending the idea of increasing levels of heat-trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
At one point they say more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will increase growth rates for plants. What they fail to mention is that weeds, allergens and invasive species are among the plants that may grow faster with elevated levels of carbon dioxide. Overall, the minor benefit for some plants pales in comparison to the major disruptions climate change could bring to agricultural crops, forests and natural ecosystems, as well as human society.
Whether intended or not, this is the same tactic that the oil and coal-friendly group, CO2 is Green, has adopted. It's also reminiscent of the tobacco industry's claims that "smoking is good for you." In fact, the Environmental Protection Agency has labeled carbon dioxide a pollutant because too much of the gas is changing our climate and setting in motion a series of changes that will have serious consequences around the world.
The authors also brush off the critical role carbon dioxide will play in determining our future climate when they criticize climate models for projecting what they say is too large a range for future temperatures -- between 2 and 10 degrees F above today's levels. But what they fail to mention is such projections depend almost entirely on how much more heat-trapping emissions go into the atmosphere. Models project that a decrease in production of heat-trapping emissions would lead to less warming -- around 2 degrees F by the end of the century--while continued high emissions would lead to greater warming -- closer to 10 degrees F.
A two degree shift is dangerous but tolerable. Ten degrees would be catastrophic. Nevertheless, Levitt and Dubner say, we should abandon efforts to reduce carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
These are just a couple of the many contrarian claims repeated in SuperFreakonomics.
Technical Fixes
Levitt and Dubner advocate the advantages of unproven technological solutions such as putting reflective particles into the atmosphere to bounce away sunlight and cool the Earth. When you ask scientists about so-called "geo-engineering" solutions they will tell you that we have no idea if it will work, that it might backfire and that even if we could do it, that it would be no excuse for failing to reduce the heat-trapping emissions that cause global warming now. It's worth noting that scientist Ken Caldeira says the authors misrepresent his views on geoengineering in their book. He does not support geoengineering to the exclusion of reducing emissions as the authors imply. Instead, he says we need to reduce excess carbon dioxide emissions to zero.
The authors appear to have taken a purposefully contrarian position on climate change science and economics. The scientific myths that Levitt and Dubner highlight will likely continue to persist in circles of people opposed to reducing emissions. It is far easier to believe there's no need to do anything about a problem if one believes the problem does not exist.
But science doesn't work that way. According to the United States' leading federal and academic scientists -- as well as the peer-reviewed scientific literature -- global warming is happening, it's hurting us now and the degree to which it will affect our children and grandchildren depends on the choices we make about how we use energy today.
While it's tempting to believe geoengineering may solve our problems, we need to work now to address climate change.
Luckily, the House of Representatives did pass legislation that would dramatically reduce heat-trapping emissions and momentum is building for the Senate to do the same. If all goes well, world leaders who meet in December's climate change negotiations in Copenhagen, Denmark will produce an effective international treaty to address climate change.
Loading comments… 
Steven David "Steve" Levitt (born May 29, 1967) is an American economist known for his work in the field of crime, in particular on the link between legalized abortion and crime rates.
Stephen J. Dubner (born August 26, 1963) is an American journalist who has written four books and numerous articles.
Unqualifie
Post a link to some of your work for us.
Since when is having an original idea a crime?
"A follow-up to the bestsellin
"The authors appear to have taken a purposeful
In chapter five, the authors:
-Repeat tired global cooling myths
-Unfairly trash climate models
-Highlight irrelevant statistics about carbon dioxide without context
-Extol the virtues of excess carbon dioxide while ignoring the downsides
-Ignore a major source of sea level rise
-Cherry-pi
-Use faulty statistics to trash renewable energy
-Advocate rolling the dice on unproven technology
-Use a silly analogy to attack plans to reduce emissions
http://www
http://cli
"In fact, the Environmen
"A two degree shift is dangerous but tolerable.
"When you ask scientists about so-called "geo-engin
"It's worth noting that scientist Ken Caldeira says the authors misreprese
I suggest you, Mr. Executive Director, learn reread the article. While you are at it, how you responding with 'more scientific analysis towards science-re
indisputab
whether we spawn a new "ice age"..or create a vast "hot house"....
chaos..on a globle scale...In a "complacen
likely to feel, what would seem, the "inevitabl
that we would abate, its "probabili
Why is that? How is it that CO2 only helps BAD plants like weeds, and not the GOOD plans like crops?
Moralizing Global Warming like this, is the reason why skeptics claim that AGW is closer to religion than science
Well, everyones got to have a hobby.
2. Life is so interestin
i.e. Real to MG: Did you hear about that global warming stuff
MG: Yep
Real: Lets commute and (insert other agendas)
MG: Lets do it, and I'll pick you up today
Result: global warming / climate change / global cooling / climate poverty / (insert new catch phrase here) / is in the same state as it has been for a millennium
.
Only when reading articles written for the general public does one find authors willing to deny what the scientists almost universall
You wrote "articles written by scientists for scientists no longer deny that GW is real, or that it is man-made, or that it will adversely impact the biosphere" what you may not understand is that climate models and their prediction
The media hypes global warming stories cause it gets them viewers and advertiser
Here is one scientist that agrees with global warming but says the IPCC is misleading the public and policymake
We are currently at 387ppm.
Warm-blood
Rats can withstand temperatue
Climate change may make large portions of the land uninhabita
It will also turn most of the US "heartland
On the positive side, Canada will become a breadbaske
As the evidence moves decisively against them, alarmists are escalating their rhetoric. Britain's Prince Charles -- whose academic credential
But opinion polls in Australia, Britain and here indicate people no longer are buying what they're selling. The Society of Environmen