Superfreakonomics Will Misinform Readers on Climate Science
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…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Who are these guys?
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.
Unqualified to say squat about climate change science. Just like all the deniers who blog about it.
Guy, perhaps you could tell us what your qualifications are to pontificate on 'global warming' (Yes, I know you said climate change, but what you really mean is AGW). Maybe you could point us to some of your peer-reviewed writings on the subject.
Post a link to some of your work for us.
Guy isn't the one publishing books involving climate change science. What's your point?
Pontificate? How is pointing out the complete lack of credibitlty of the deniers pontificating on climate science? Perhaps you could tell us your qualifications for pontificating about everything?
People are jumping on the authors, who are economists, for simply "thinking outside the box." Yes, they have come up with some surprising, somewhat original thoughts. That is what these guys do. You can read their previous book, if you want more of the surprising, "outside the box" thinking. They want to make people step back and look at reality from a slightly different perspective. That is the essential thing that they do. To condemn them for not conforming to the current conventional wisdom, about global warming, or anything else, is a big mistake.
Since when is having an original idea a crime?
If a book is error-ridden, inaccurate, and plays fast and loose with the scientiifc consensus is it then a crime to say so? Of course not! It is our responsibility.
"A follow-up to the bestselling book "Freakonomics" features a chapter that grossly mischaracterizes climate science, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Global Cooling," repeats a large number of easily discredited arguments regarding climate science, energy production, and geoenginee
"The authors appear to have taken a purposefully contrarian position on climate change science and economics. While such a position may help draw attention to their book, their reliance on faulty arguments and distorted statistics does a disservice to their readers."
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-pick short-term climate fluctuations while missing the bigger picture
-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
Most of Melanie Fitzpatrick's book review sways by emotion rather than by reason - all to support her political position. I have been the Executive Director of an international nonprofit reforestation foundation for 17 years - hardly the stigma of the political right - yet I find her analysis misleading, unscientific and ultimately a form of propaganda. The world is filled with far more than two positions but dumbing down arguments and positions to 'us and them' degrades the species. I suggest that she consider a more scientific analysis towards science-related topics.
What emotional article did you read? Where did Melanie put forth 'us and them' arguments? Because these are some of the sentences I read:
"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." -- This is a fact.
"A two degree shift is dangerous but tolerable.
"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. " -- This is a fact.
"It's worth noting that scientist Ken Caldeira says the authors misrepresent his views on geoengineering in their book." -- This is true.
I suggest you, Mr. Executive Director, learn reread the article. While you are at it, how you responding with 'more scientific analysis towards science-related topics' instead of emotional ad hominem attacks?
I can find no fault in this, or any of the arguments.
indisputab
whether we spawn a new "ice age"..or create a vast "hot house"....
chaos..on a globle scale...In a "complacent society"..
likely to feel, what would seem, the "inevitable outcome" of our "folly" as a species...
that we would abate, its "probabili
"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"
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
Weeds normally grow faster in better conditions than other plants, don't they, and without care will dominate the landscape. You ideas of moralizing are very fanciful! When is it moralizing to point out the obvious!!!
Does it hurt to be so stoooopid?
Slagle makes some of the most amazing comments in their vapidity!
After skimming through the GW threads on huffpo, it's clear that Romeo, and Richard2/fumes have spent their entire weekends posting drivel.
Well, everyones got to have a hobby.
Man, without Romeo and Richard these threads would be so much more enjoyable. Romeo just posts the same nonsense time and time again and Richard seems to think he is some kind of scientist without any qualifications. Well, I like Fumes so i have to put up with him.
1. If that is the case why have comments section at all.
2. Life is so interesting when everyone agrees.
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.
It is interesting that 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.
.
Only when reading articles written for the general public does one find authors willing to deny what the scientists almost universally proclaim. Nevertheless, what the public believes is very important, because what people believe will determine how they vote, which will determine governmental policy. Thus, campaigns to misinform the public, whether funded by big corporations or just part of one individual's attempt to make easy money, are so very important.
Yes, these contrarian authors are shrewd and they know there is big money in contrarian opinions and most people lack the knowledge to know how silly most of these contrarian books are, like how the author above gives the example of CO2 being said to be better for plant life. The contrarian books are easy to read and money-makers, but like watching Fox News, one is left with nothing but easily rebutted opinion.
I'm not saying global warming is not real, I'm just addressing your comment.
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 predictions and uncertainty are way more complicated than the hype and mis-information you hear from the media.
The media hypes global warming stories cause it gets them viewers and advertisers, i.e. catering to the demands and desires of the public. If global cooling was the cause or trend of the day they would switch to stories on global cooling in a New York minute.
Here is one scientist that agrees with global warming but says the IPCC is misleading the public and policymakers: http://
The blog is http://pie
Not so easy and clear as the media makes out global warming to be is it.
Sorry, but you need to go to the source to find out what scientists think:
http://cli
“Humans are significantly altering the global climate, but in a variety of diverse ways beyond the radiative effect of carbon dioxide. The IPCC assessments have been too conservative in recognizing the importance of these human climate forcings as they alter regional and global climate.”
Books like Superfreakonomics by adopting a contrarian position will always be large sellers. So many are misinformed about science, think it is done by pointed-heady elitists, and like to see their own values reinforced in print. The authors can make any wild claims they like, like co2 will be good for plants without explaining the myriad of studies that describe, as the author does, that invasive species will also thrive, along with weeds, and there will be severe water shortages which is most important of all. So a book like Superfreaks misinforms and of course is totally ignored by real scientists who see right through it, but a few deniers can quote its contents for awhile and feel some intellectual heft. Of course, like most denier statements the book is all smoke and mirrors.
The acceptable level of CO2 in the atmos is below 350ppm. Until about 200 years ago it was pretty much around 275ppm from the time of Neolithic humans.
We are currently at 387ppm.
Unless developing countries with the highest population densities can "leap frog" the carbon-based technologies that the US and Europe have used since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, we will have no hope of scaling back to 350 ppm. As these dense populations develop increasing energy demands, they will use whatever technology is available and least expensive. We need to develop and disseminate green energy technologies now and choke off global warming at its source. This global population map illustrates the looming threat that a carbon-based industrialization of these countries would present: http://sed
Another weird thing, the author is supposed to be an economist but has no interest in the economic benfit to this country if we are the leaders in green technology.
It is interesting that every species has a "climate band," a set of temperatures it can withstand.
Warm-blooded animals are even able to adjust that band, if they have time to adjust (which is why when folks from Alaska or Maine visit Florida they think it is hot if it is 70 degrees).
Rats can withstand temperatues well above 40 degrees Celsius (100 F), but humans top out at about 100.
Climate change may make large portions of the land uninhabitable to us in the next century, including the fertile cresent where so much oil resides, and most of the American Southwest and Mexico.
It will also turn most of the US "heartland," into desert, which will kill our agracultural output.
On the positive side, Canada will become a breadbasket!
Satellite data indicate the planet cooled significantly from 2007 to 2008, said Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama at Huntsville. This winter figures to be the coldest in decades, says the Farmer's Almanac. The ice sheets in the Arctic and Antarctic are getting thicker. Dr. Mojib Latif, a scientist on whom the UN relied heavily for its original alarmist forecasts, now says the planet will cool for the next 20 years.
As the evidence moves decisively against them, alarmists are escalating their rhetoric. Britain's Prince Charles -- whose academic credentials are even weaker than Al Gore's -- told business leaders in Brazil we have less than 100 months to avert climate catastrophe.
But opinion polls in Australia, Britain and here indicate people no longer are buying what they're selling. The Society of Environmental Journalists may not notice, but ordinary people can tell when it's cold outside.
A prediction in the Farmer's Almanac is not, when you get right down to it, data.
Could you please provide a link to Dr Christy's statement and research? I would like to be able to verify that he actually made such a statement and see the context within which he made the statement.
Weather is not climate.
Giving false data and citing sources which actually completely and thoroughly contradict your thesis is not a convincing way to influence opinions.
Yes, I'd also like to see Romeo or Richard/fumes provide links to actual scientific research and analisis that backs up their claims.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
