1. The planet has not warmed as significantly as the AGW crowd would have us believe and appears to have begun cooling after 1998.
2. There are indications the planet will cool for as much as 30 years before warming again.
3. Warmer periods have been better for human life and survivability than colder.
4. CO2 is a trace element that promotes plant life and therefore the animal life that depends on it.
It would seem that perhaps we and our governments should focus more on real toxic environmental impactors and less on using CO2 emissions as a means for extracting more taxes and making life more difficult for us.
It is your critics that have a blind religious need for global warming to be true as conventionally understood. Yet they avoid solutions like geoengineering and nuclear power that would not raise the status of white liberal yuppies relative to the rest of the countries. This shows that they are not truly concerned with global warming per se, but simply are trying to raise their own status.
Why is the phase "Global Cooling" in the title then? It's been pointed out that there will be a number of people who will only see this book on the shelves of an airport bookstore. Even if you qualify the "Global Cooling" aspect of your title in the text, the folks who never read the book but saw the title will still be mislead. As for geo-engineering, I'd say the authors are probably letting their boyhood love of science fiction novels to get the best of them...
Just the bare fact that you sorta, kinda, maybe questioned part of the AGW theory puts you squarely in the "opposition" camp with many of the people who really, really want to believe that Global Warming is the single most important issue facing mankind. Eventually.
You're "denialists" now, and nothing you can say will redeem you in their eyes.
"The statements being circulated create the false impression that our analysis of the global-warming crisis is ideological and unscientific. Nothing could be further from the truth."
You call global warming a "religion."
That's about as ideological and unscientific as you can get.
Oxpo - It can hardly be fair to blame Levitt and Dubner for the fact that America is filled with non-readers who will believe anything they hear in a soundbite. That's a deeper societal problem. It is perhaps the oldest cliche of print culture that you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover. That extends to SuperFreakonomics.
I read a lot of science fiction when I was a boy, and now I know how preposterous it all was. I mean, there were stories about tourists in space, hand-held wireless communication devices that could fit in your ear, and China emerging as a power and sending people into space. There was even a story about a computer that held all the knowledge of the world and people could just dial in and learn about history, pop culture or science for free.
This is not a rebuttal. We need a point-by-point rebuttal. Your sources are saying you quoted them out of context. Your critics are showing clear instances where you guys got your facts wrong. You need to give us evidence that, for example, solar panels are black and not also blue, that mainstream thought was that the world was cooling in the 1970s when people are saying that was not what mainstream thought was then.
You should get to "work" a bit quicker on these issues.
Science can prove that global warming is a farce driven by the far left politics and those that want no progress by mankind. When is America going to wake up and throw out the bums. Fred
If they are only reading the cover (which is entirely designed to get you to be curious about the book and read it) - then they have no reason to be critical of the book, or should be 'mis-led' by their laziness from not actually reading the book.
If you base your decisions on a single quote, enticement statement, or soundbyte, you are making woefully informed choices. This is a significant problem with how many people receive their 'facts' today .
repeat after me... Never. Judge. A. Book. By.... (you know the rest).
The problem is whether the temperature has changed up or down relative to environmental changes on this planet and relative to other planets. We now can answer the two sides of this question- and I bet there is cause to be real concerned. Taking it down to a very basic level-- make a mess, clean it up and some messes (if you let them go for too long) are impossible to clean up. I wonder about people who make judgments on this question based upon their values, suppositions etc. That is not science. It has been said that "ignorance is bliss." Well, I guess if you are dead, it is bliss. Sure, there are some people who have the sort of metabolism where they can eat anything-- but how many, and even they need to be concerned about what eating too much junk is doing to their bodies. So re the economy-- we need a regulatory mechanism that works and that holds people accountable. Yes, there are some corporations who are not greedy. But having just bought some stock and paying 650. for the opportunity only to find out that a friend paid for the exact same transaction 19.95. I say-- greed is still in and needs to be monitored asap-
I don't think the issue is that your analysis is ideological and unscientific as it is utterly incompetent. Actually, I'd surmise that your analysis is primarily profit-driven. Nothing sells like reflexive contrarianism.
I thought your first book was flatly terrible, but that was mostly because it was poorly written and fairly repetitive. At least it was a credible attempt to inform the reader, though. I guess that was too much to ask on this go-round.
Why would you called that criticism fraudulent? You might provide an explanation of why you are right but calling your criticism fraudulent?? don't worry, your book will sell well and you'll get few more millions...You don't need to call people or their criticism fraudulent. Polite disagreement will create much better image and an environment for discussion.
There will never be a broad bipartisan consensus upon anything it seems, even upon empirical science, judging by your supportive commentators. I have resigned myself to seeing this as an issue between two methodologies for thinking about information (inductive versus deductive reasoning). Naturally people who have nothing much to lose, such as middle class scientists do not look for nor need information that supports their short term economic goals. In comparison these fragile corporate empires are perilously entangled in the politics of promoting information that it is focused upon short term self-interest and they use think tanks to market these packets of "special" information to others.
Agreed - let's have a point-by-point rebuttal of ClimateProgress. Less shouting and more debate, please.
Also, your GW chapter has been circulated widely (i.e. lots of people have actually already read the chapter!). ClimateProgress even had a pdf linked to on that post ...
This is what happens to anyone who dares challenge "scientific consensus." This history of science teaches us that today's scientific consensus often becomes tomorrow's benighted superstition. Nineteenth Century medicine which traced diseases to the vitreous or aqueous "humors" now seems laughable and barbaric. In the early Twentieth Century physicists supposed that electricity in the atmosphere flowed through a medium of "ether" and this too was scientific consensus. Let's have some humility, people, and keep an open mind.
You can't have it both ways: try to score publicity with the catch phrase "global cooling," which belongs only in the denier camp that now loves you while at the same time claiming to have an accurate understanding of the basic science of global warming. What next for freakonomics: it's commonly assumed that being dead means the absence of breathing and brain-activity, but we are going to turn received wisdom on its head to prove that the dead can indeed breath and walk.
Well, unless you write the words "global warming" followed immediately by the words "...is unequivocally being caused by the hand of Man." then you will re shouted down as a heretic. Especially here in the NY Times.
You two must hate the world and want us all to die of smog.
Peter, I might recommend becoming a scientist or perhaps more easilly reading a book on the history of science or even the philisophy of science to realize how factually incorrect your comments are. Scientistific consensus is difficult to achieve and has rarely been overturned in the past. FYI, by consensus I mean that 90%+ can agree on a fairly specific set of scientific statements.
One question: if "we believe that rising global temperatures are a man-made phenomenon and that global warming is an important issue to solve," why is your book subtitled "Global Cooling"?
I'm looking forward to the thorough response. In light of the many inaccuracies (there was no global cooling consensus in the seventies, the globe hasn't stopped warming, CO2 is a major culprit in the warming), you sure have some explaining to do.
Data don't lie, but coming up with a incorrect interpretation of thosedata seems to be surprisingly easy.
On one thing I agree with your premise: Meaningfully reducing global carbon emissions is indeed very difficult. In light of the risks involved with a high CO2 world, we should drastically increase our efforts to do so. You could have made a useful contribution in thinking about ways to reduce those risks. It's a shame you didn't.
Virtually all climate scientists and all the world's governments understand that global warming is not only happening, it's happening faster than predicted, and the consequences, if we do nothing, are basically "it's the end of the world as we know it".
Of course you denialists are soooo much smarter than all of them.
I loved Freakonomics. Just loved it. But now, instead of telling the world about your own research, which you actually understand, you've mistakenly allowed yourself to become a mouthpiece for a baker's dozen of well-worn "let's do nothing to reduce carbon emissions" tropes. This is a real disappointment.
In your shoes, I would consider just acknowledging that this chapter is flawed. Your reputation may be permanently damaged if you continue to defend really shoddy work.
A couple of things to mention that I understand are neglected in the book:
1. CO2 causes increased ocean acidity in addition to global warming, so aerosols don't even solve the whole CO2 problem. This is even ignoring the additional problems aerosols may cause.
2. The vastly lower CO2 emissions from solar power (even including that produced during the manufacture of the panels) vastly more than offsets any albedo affect. If you're concerned that the darkness of solar panels would contribute to global warming, we could easily paint an offsetting amount of stuff white, or even just cover things like roads and parkinglots that are already dark with solar panels.
I'll be very interested to see this. Hopefully you stay away from the ad hominems and name calling that categorized Dubner's response so far. I'd love to see some transcripts showing that Caldeira is wrong to say he was misrepresented, how Krugman's interpretation of Weitzman is inferior to yours, how your statement in this post about the position you two have on global warming squares with Dubner's post from Thursday, where he's cheerleading a newspaper article claiming that manmade warming is insignificant and that we're in for 30 years of cooling.
That said, given that you misrepresented the DeLong post you linked to in this response, I'm already a bit wary. DeLong didn't criticize your chapter on global warming. He criticized your PR strategy in having the .pdf of the chapter taken down and stopping amazon searchability, precisely because it meant he could only read the critics, and not independently verify them.
Taking issue with the fact that he hasn't read the book yet not only misses his point, but actively misleads people into thinking he was attacking the substance of your book.
"Like those who are criticizing us, we believe that rising global temperatures are a man-made phenomenon and that global warming is an important issue to solve."
Maybe global cooling shouldn't be part of the subtitle?
Global warming is no joke especially, since there has been a lot of misinformation about it by special interest groups for short-term monetary gain, which people actually believe, to-date halting scale-appropriate timely action and greatly amplifying the danger.
With the hottest temperatures and averages on record in the last few years including a recent 1-in-200-year heat wave killing 27,000 people in Europe, current and near-future projections for climate-change causing serious life-threatening problems in both the developed and developing world, the honorable thing to do would be to withdraw the book -- or correct it to accurately represent the facts -- and apologize.
With the Iraq War, healthcare, and the delay of scale-appropriate action on climate change etc., apparently, there is just too much money in cultivating ignorance.
The Producer's Mel Brooks managed to win with "Springtime with Hitler . . . ." You'll probably win something out this venture. But, the future of current life on this planet -- including us -- will not.
Complaints about people arguing without having read your book would have been a bit more credible if you had not been so guilty of the same sin. Consider the "but studies don't measure the CO2 impact of HSRail construction" when citing a study that did just that.
In the end, no matter who witty the apologetics for mainstream economics, it remains mainstream economics with all that entails for the acceptance of radical limitations on what questions about the economy may be effectively expressed.
Wow--Everyone's response is SO EMOTIONAL. It drives home the point that a rational discussion about environmental problems is currently impossible. Everyone's already made up their mind, and lines have been drawn. Kudos to you for attempting to make things fuzzy again!
The specifics pointed out by Climateprogress.org are quite interesting, including the latest installments: climateprogress.org/2009/10/17/error-superfreakonomics-krugman-economics-dead-wrong/
And it is amazing that people still think it's scientifically valid to cherry-pick ENSO-biased 1998 as a base period to claim a decade of global cooling (in a temperature dataset with no Arctic representation). CLIMATE warming is based on average deviation from a multi-decadal base period, in which the variability of "internal" ocean-atmosphere heat exchange tends to cancel out.
@38, Nell: "Virtually all climate scientists...." do not agree. There is ample contrary evidence. As previously mentioned, wattsupwiththat.com/ is a good place to go to find contrarians.
I am not a "denialist", I would simply say that whether the earth is warming or cooling is immaterial. It's been hotter before and it'll be cooler in the future. Or vice versa. Either way, there is precious little we can do about it. Don't be wasteful, conserve where possible and look for more efficient ways to do everything. But a wholesale overhaul of our entire way of life will never happen.
And as to whether or not "...all the world's governments..." are in agreement on warming, you're wrong. India and China have more or less told the developed world to take a hike when it comes to environmental matters, as have most African nations. I suppose that when you say "all the world's governments" you mean "all the world's governments in Europe." Because warming is primarily a concern of the affluent Western countries of the world.
Please suspend publication and review the science carefully before releasing this book. The passages quoted by responsible people reveal that you did not learn very much of the underlying science and made some very basic mistakes.
Please don't throw away your reputation for the sake of a few dollars. You will never have it back.
I believe that BOTH prof's Levitt &Krugman are wrong (i.e. they agree that climate change is mostly man-made). Furthermore, prof. Krugman is Even More incorrect in supporting carbon cap-&-trade policies + subsidies &the whole "green economy".
3 Facts: FIRST - Recognize that Money rules the world (Especially Politics/Policy)... SECOND - The biggest threat to our existence are nuclear weapons, not CO2 or +2.5C over 3-5 decades. THIRD - there is no 'green economy' there is simply an extremely costly cap-and-trade system some politicians support, & a subsidised &lobbied-for privileged industry that is otherwise cost-inefficient - &in the end the normal parts of our economy/industry are hurt (firms shut down or cut production) = we lose EMPLOYMENT + the 'green' sector does Not make up for it. ALL good economic research (by economic research standards i.e. objective) shows that growth will decrease as a result of these policies.
THUS: Q1 - there's a lot of opposition to the "climate change" policy. WHY?
A. Because SUBSIDIES ®ULATION (tax breaks etc..) are being CAPTURED by the 'green' lobby - high-tech & PE companies (Al Gore is the easiest target here).
B. The evidence is weak (watch " UNSTOPPABLE SOLAR CYCLES" documentary on youtube), read excerpts of lectures of alternative research papers / renown climatologists - there's substantial evidence, supported by climatologists who do not agree to "research climate change" (I.E. turn away grants &donations to their departments by corporations &individuals to research "solutions" to climate change &similar research issues with the purpose/hypothesis (of the donors) to prove that climate change is occurring)
Q2 - How is it that > mankind has survived through the Ice Age < (among other climate changes &catastrophes) without all the modern tools we possess to relocate / shelter ourselves / grow enough food??
Can't we handle climate change, without succumbing to: a) regulation (hurts economies &industry - hurts your EMPLOYMENT! ) b) subsidies (it's TAX money that could be spent on education/health care/paying back the huge debt) c) hurting firms, employment, and economic growth?
Well, I don't know if that chapter was your work and/or Dubner's, but the criticisms to date look pretty coherent, so a fair-minded point-by-point response, not to mention putting the chapter text up, would be helpful for your own reputation.
Could I suggest that you start with Brad DeLong's six questions? I am particularly astounded by your inclusion of Myhrvold's remarks on solar panels without comment. As reported, they are utterly bizarre for someone with a PhD in physics, and it's clear that at least one of the three of you has been either dishonest or wholly mistaken.
"The most important point I hope you can explicate is that climate models are not science. Science is what is observed, not forecast."
This is dead wrong. Every scientific law and theory is a prediction about how things will occur.
E=MC2 predicts how much energy you will get if you convert mass to energy. F=MA predicts how much acceleration an object will receive given its mass and the force applied to it. The laws of thermodynamics predict how systems will interact based on their entropy and heat.
"Fraudulent" is a fairly strong characterization. To make this claim be anything more than an ad hominem argument, you need to have strong evidence of intent on the part of your critics.
"Much of the climate community still views the idea with deep suspicion or outright hostility. Geoengineering, many say, is a way to feed society's addiction to fossil fuels. "It's like a junkie figuring out new ways of stealing from his children"
In other words, 'much of the climate community' would not welcome engineering-based cures to global warming on the grounds that they might allow us to continue our sinful addictions and dissolute lifestyles. For these folks, the idea that action on global warming will require us to change our ways of living is not a bug, it's a feature.
I am a paleoclimatologist, and can only say FINALLY. Someone with economics background understands the difference between reality and a model for reality.
Al Gore, Jim Hansen, Paul Krugman, and many on this page want us to base public policy on models claim to predict the future of the climate, even though they do not model cloud formation correctly, do not incorporate the Sun, and do not model the biosphere feedback at all (just for starters). This is not (necessarily) a criticism of modelers. Modeling a planet is difficult; many things will be left out of a model. It is likewise not surprising that these models have failed to predict anything (that is, say in advance what is going to happen). Not hurricanes, not El Nino, not the cooling of the past few years. Nor do they "retrodict" things from the past that the modelers did not know about and therefore did not parameterize into their models. Not the Pliocene warming. Not the Ice Age terminations, nothing.
Those of us who work with models are not surprised by this at all. We are still crawling in climate modeling, and one must crawl before one walks. The only surprise is that politicians should have become so fixated so strongly on science that is just not there.
Jim Hansen had an interesting hypothesis; that feedback cycles that amplify CO2-caused increases in temperature might overwhelm feedback cycles that damp this perturbation. Maybe. Any good scientist would consider it as a hypothesis. But it is clear now that it is a poorly supported hypothesis, and is certainly no grounds for determining public policy.
The problem arises because Al Gore declared Hansen's hypothesis "a winner", made a movie and won a Nobel Peace Prize. And so non-scientists (including many people writing on this page) think they have "settled science" in their pocket. This is not the first time that science has been corrupted by politicians selecting a winner. Stalin re. Lysenko; and back to the Pharaohs.
On this page, we have people who display none of the critical thinking required for science who nonetheless think that their opinion is "scientific". Gecko thinks that the European heat wave means something (no, weather is not climate). Tom Olson is certain that your chapter is "flawed" (It probably is, but does Tom have a clue why?). Nell is certain that "virtually all climate scientists and
If the Union of Concerned Scientists review points are correct (at ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/book-superfreakonomics.html), it sounds like Leavitt and Dubner have proven themselves gullible to the silliest of claims against the science of global warming (e.g. it's been cooling since 1998, carbon dioxide levels were higher in that past, etc., etc.)
Contrariness can seem cute at times, but it's no substitute for knowledge.
I always love hearing that line from those running about spouting the platitudes of Al Gore. Obviously the flim-flam man gets a pass on credentialing, as do the small army of movie stars, rock bands, and media personalities who lecture the rest of us at every opportunity.
Who but the skeptics were saying in 1998 that there was no crisis? Ten years later it is obvious that the skeptics were right, and the panicked alarmists were wrong with their Vision of the Imminent Apocalypse. The average rational observer saw it all happen, sees the backpedaling by the alarmists, and wonders if we might not discuss all this and try to arrive at the truth over time. Instead we are told to remain silent while the alarmists destroy our economy, future, and way of life. I don't think so.
Concision and simplicity are deadly effective, and the book will thrive on this theme: Carbon reduction is an ineffective and unaffordable way to change climate.
Good Luck. a. Did you think that writing anything about climate change would NOT generate controversy? Climate change has been politicized and everyone has their opinion, scientific or not, valid or not.
b. I will reserve judgment until I read the chapter.
c. Just make sure your rebuttal is scientific. present the hypothesis, evidence even if it should be obvious ... restate it anyway.
I've read the chapter and my response is quite simple: it's no better than a mediocre magazine article. You aren't an expert in the field and the chapter shows no special understanding that an average quality news reporter might bring - well, maybe part of the discussion of externalities might be more economist-sounding, but not by much.
I have to say I'm surprised. The article takes an extremely complex subject and reduces it almost ad absurdam, even relying on the magazine article-like quoting of a few hand-picked voices. It's not sloppily written but it's so far below the level of the actual work you do that it makes me sad.
There is nothing "super" about this chapter. It is a lessening of the work you've actually done.
I'm especially looking forward to the detailed takedown you two have in store for misrepresenting other's opinions. You owe Caldeira an apology. Plain and simple.
You really don't get it. The whole point of an environmental crises is that their is no solution other than socialism.
How you have no realized environmentalism is a socialist shell movement is beyond me. After all, you don't think all those socialists disappeared after the wall fell, do you?
The title states Global Cooling which is about as bad as one can get regarding the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There is no global cooling on time scales that determine the underlying trend from AGW. The title of the book alone suggests that the authors are more interested in selling the book than being scientifically accurate.
Global Warming: Man or Myth? www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/
"Like those who are criticizing us, we believe that rising global temperatures are a man-made phenomenon..."
Boy, do I wish Levitt didn't take this view. I guess you simply can't be a college prof in the Western world and go against the grain on this issue. Too bad.
I think what bothers me is that many of the concerns raised are less about specific points of argument, but more about questionable research (authors claiming you misquoted them and so on).
I really enjoyed the first book and often told people "don't read malcom gladwell, he's just a storyteller. Freakonomics backs it up w/ solid research and facts".
If that means you need to delay publication, I'm cool w/ that. We all make mistakes. I can wait for a book that has any issues fixed--as I'm sure many readers would be willing to do the same.
I do hope, however, if you feel that things need to be corrected, you correct them instead of just "pushing it through". I don't think your readers will be OK with that.
You would have found it less stressful to have included a chapter containing nothing but cartoons depicting Mohamed. Your opposition would have been more genteel, too.
Do you see anything in the behavior or attitude of Joe Romm and his Reaver-like followers that leads you to believe that they want to save the world?
Two economists write an interesting book about how economics can lead to counterintuitive conclusions, and it is successful.
As a result, those two economists are pressured by their publisher to write a follow-up book with a similar title and with more counterintuitive conclusions, which will earn everyone lots more money.
They exhausted most of what they really have to say in their first book, so they search desperately for more subjects to write about.
Since global warming is the subject of intense debate, they decide to write about it and look around for contrarian positions they can quote. They are in a hurry to complete the sequel, and they don't know much about global warming, so they misquote, misrepresent, and misunderstand many of their sources in order to quickly write a chapter that is provocative and contrarian as possible.
Needless to say, this not the way to write a book that says anything worthwhile.
The public (and their panderers, like Krugman, or whomever) want *problems*, not solutions. Books or documentaries (like "An Inconvenient Truth") are predominantly about a problem and the disastrous consequences of that problem. Very little (a small fraction) of time is spent on real solutions to the problem, and those "solutions" are almost never thought out very well.
People want problems, and they pay to hear about them. The more dire, the better.
No, every reviewer clearly says that the chapter makes the same false claim. And that false claim is this: In the seventies, there was a consensus that there was global cooling, similar to today's consensus about global warming. There was no such consensus; it was a theory that there was slow cooling, and the consensus decided did not have enough proof. NOTHING like today's thousands of scientists who agree about the problem, NOTHING like the fact that the northern border of Russia use to never fully thaw throughout all of human history, and there is now a 500-mile-wide ocean there in the summer. These freak guys try sooo hard to be witty and unconventional that sometimes they just lie.
With people overwhelmingly ignorant of what is and isn't science, how could the popular global warming ideology be anything but a religion, at least in some significant way?
However, isn't Pascal's Wager a more pragmatic stance: AWG & Inaction = Apocalypse. AWG & Action = Possible Solution. No AWG & Inaction = Market Prosperity? No AWG & Action = Tidier world?
Whatever those questionable last two entries are, they have to be really impressive to outweigh an apocalypse. Couldn't they only be relevant if they predict an equally plausible alternate apocalypse? I'm sure a 2x2 doesn't do the question justice, but I feel we're missing the important risk analysis instead in favor of ideological shouting.
I look forward to reading Super Freakonomics and see their take.
Yuk yuk. I'm witty and have something controversial and counter-intuitive to say. Yuk yuk; try to think of something this way instead. See the mower is mowing the grass, the grass is hitting the blade. yuk yuk. It all means that you dont really have to mow your lawn anymore. See how witty. Huh? Do ya? We've all had enough of these silly guys replacing thorough understanding with little games and half-truths.
Levitt you've been drinking that Chicago kool-aid way to long. It's time to get back to your MIT roots and do some serious research. That's the difference between a John Bates Clark winner and a Nobel.
You not only are denialists, you are cashing in on the tail end of the Republican War on science. Absolutely nothing in your book re global warming is at all new. Absolutely every word is well debunked. You're liars and con men, and you deserve to be pilloried, and your book to be remaindered.
The economics in the chapter is just as bad and confused as the climate science. For example, they describe Mount Pinatubo as generating "positive externalities", whereas externalities are always costs imposed on or benefits rendered to third parties due to some economic activity. It was more annoying than reading Malcolm Gladwell...
This response to the criticisms of this book is ridiculous. The scientific sources of the (mis) information in the book, are publicly saying the authors have incorrectly characterized their work and analysis. This is deadly; the book would get a failing grade in undergraduate courses on the science discussed, because the factual information is wrong.
If the authors want to defend printing lies about the work of the scientists they used as their source, then they better learn something about the science of global warming.
As to getting attacked before the book is out... this book has already been publicized in the media, and this makes the content discussed fair game.
There's looking like iconoclasts and there's painting yourself into a corner with the Tea Partiers and the tinfoil hat crowd. This chapter really does the later. Dudes, you should have done your homework better.
One point that no one seems to talk about: Our problem is not just "global warming" but actually "global lack of night time cooling." The greenhouse effect hinders heat radiating back out into space, so nights just aren't as cold as they once were.
This affects everything from pine bark beetles to wine grapes in ways that most people are unhappy about. Pine and spruce bark beetles have destroyed 40 million acres of forest from Colorado to Alaska because winter nights are no longer cold enough to control them.
The various schemes to put stuff in the atmosphere to block sunlight may reduce average temperature, but will not restore night time cooling. The only way to do that is to reduce the greenhouse effect.
Put on your glasses and stop staring myopically at data - manipulated data - from the last 30 years and see what the history of our planet has been screaming at us - we don't control climate change and CO2 has never controlled climate change. Oh wait... Oh yeah.. to admit that we can't control climate change by limiting CO2 means we have to admit we aren't god and goverments cant' collect taxes - and that means we then have to focus on all the environmental damage we've been doing and blaming on rising CO2 emissions and actually fix the real problem instead. Grow up people - we have to adapt to climate change and become better managers of our environment - not CO2, because we can no more control the temperature on this planet by limiting CO2 then computer models can accurately predict the weather 3 weeks or 300 years from now!
What's really surprising about Krugman's response (well, not really surprising considering it is Krugman, who is a pretentious snob anyway) is the affront on your career that he weaves into his attempted critique of your take on climate change. Just sort of unnecessary/nasty.
Just as an aside, the media conflated the "global cooling" scares of the 1970's into an enviromental mantra that never came to pass.
Thats seems to be the case again. Claims of global consensus is one of those herrings that get repeated all the time now. Its not that there is no warming that is the issue. Its the chicken littles and end times enviromental priesthood that scares some of us who have seen this before.
Dude, people have criticized you for much more serious sins than having an unpopular opinion. Namely, people have taken swipes at you for misrepresenting sources (Caldeira supports cutting emissions and sees huge problems with aerosol pumping; Weitzman considers a five percent chance of catastrophe significant and considers warming less than ten degrees to pose serious problems and to be much more likely), lending credence to long-disproved arguments (that an informative comparison can be made between the scientific "consensus" on global cooling in the 70's and the current consensus on global warming, for example. Oh, and just recently your co-author used the 1998 outlier to make a post about how the earth is cooling), and presenting an extremely one-sided view of geo-engineering (discussing aerosol pumping without mentioning ocean acidification, for example).
These people aren't *just* painting you as a knee jerk contrarian or global warming denier, they are also making great arguments for why your chapter on global warming is intellectually dishonest. I hope you start treating this less like a kerfuffle over your broad thesis or an attack on you for being a global warming heretic and start dealing with the specific claims of academic dishonesty people are leveling against you, either admitting that you misrepresented people and presented a warped view of the argument or proving why you did not. Because that's what is giving me (reader who enjoyed freakonomics, has scrapped plans to buy superfreakonomics) pause, not the ad hominem attacks or even the claims that you are wrong. I don't think aerosols are the optimal solution to global warming, but I can read a book from someone who does. But if you are willing to misrepresent 1. sources and 2. the state of a broader academic debate (by, for example, championing extreme positions without fairly characterizing the arguments against those positions in the main stream), I have no desire to read what you write.
All of the global average temperatures are readily calculated for the entire 20th century and until the present with no consideration whatsoever of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The method and graphic results are shown in a pdf at climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true
The Union of Concerned Scientists shared climate scientist Melanie Fitzpatrick's criticism of your book's chapter on global warming with several media outlets. NPR simply recognized the value of sharing with their readers that scientists and scientific organizations are taking issue with how your book characterizes climate science. Sending an e-mail and making polite phone calls can hardly be considered "pressure."
Further, I take issue with your characterization of your critics. They are scientists with expertise in climate Melanie Fitzpatrick is a scientist. And Joe Romm is a former Department of Energy official with a PhD in physics.
I look forward to your more robust response of criticisms of the book's chapter. And I also look forward to discussing your invitation to exchange ideas on these issues with my coworkers when I return to work on Monday.
Thanks, Aaron Huertas Press Secretary Union of Concerned Scientists
The first poster in this thread quotes the authority figure economist Krugman, while the fifth poster says that economists are too ignorant of real science to be able to make any comment. Sounds like a good cage match to me.
In terms of whether this is a religion for some, after reading many posts I can't help but feel that many of the posters would be burning people at the stake to make examples of them, if they had the power to do so. Certainly, the level of animus is more like a political discussion than a scientific one. (And yes, perhaps the co-author is trolling -- haven't read there yet so I don't know -- but if you fancy yourself as a representative of science and reason, one might expect you to respond that way.
Don't let people intimidate you out of your very important work guys! Don't be afraid.
Why are the presumptions and character attacks on these two considered fair discourse, but their attempts to maturely and fairly defend themselves from being taken out of context considered "ad hominen attacks"?
They aren't taking the denial side. They're just analyzing one of the many facets of the issue. And now that the poralizing global warming crusaders are seeing a popular figure question some aspect of their orthodox, they're getting out the guns. And now that these two are defending themselves, *they're* the ones making ad hominen attacks?!
Stephen and Steven, some of us out here have enough common sense to support you. Keep the good work. Don't worry about the character attacks. Your integrity is admirable.
It's the same old story. The two people at the party that everyone loves for their independent mindedness because they have great anecdotes about sumo wrestlers suddenly get raised eye brows and scoffs when they have voice *real* independent thought.
It's so much easier to love independent-mindedness when it's someone standing on a table and wearing a lamp shade than when they contradict the popular zeal that you cling to.
Unfortunately for the popular academic dogmatists, these lamp shade wearers have a real mind of their own.
I think it's interesting that educated economists aren't supossed to comment on climatology, yet environmentalists want our entire economy under their veto power.
Remarkable. All in favor of "GW is the greatest threat to man/woman" raise your hands...now, time to start reviewing Forbes, Fortune, BW, WSJ etc for the number of ads by consultants on "How to make your Fortune 500 GREEN." This one has been my favorite to watch. In the 70's when I studied the environment in college (yes, the same theories existed 35 years ago! Imagine!) at least it was Industry against Tree Huggers. Now Industry has discovered they can make a killing by agreeing and they now subsidize YOUR efforts to attack these issues. Doesn't the fact that most of the Utilities are backing your cause concern you just slightly? Wake up and smell the coffee. That's just one of the points the book is making. We are about to embarq on a carbon trading program because consultants and others can make a killing...not because they believe it will solve an environmental issue. Grow up.
I've read the chapter (or at least the PDF that was posted on climateprogress.org) and I think the chapter is misleading and incredibly disappointing. Details on my blog at standupeconomist.com/blog/economics/climate-change-in-superfreakonomics/
This is a crystal clear and, as far as I can tell, who have not read the book, valid argument, from someone who has read it, and Leavitt and Dubner are not even attempting to counter it.
I have read in many places that the new book, "Superfreakonomics" is to be released on 20 october. I live in Slovenia, a tiny country to the East of Italy, and have seen the book up for sale in book stores. (of coarse I bought one imediately). Why is this the case?
I won't render an opinion about your opinions on global warning, but I will say that the position you stated on WNYC yesterday saying that buying human organs for transplant on the open market makes good economic sense tells me that you don't do very thorough research. You conclusions are simply not credible.
How do I know? I am part of the transplant community. The mother of a transplant recipient and an organ donor. Haven't read the recent research by Berkeley professor Nancy Scheper-Hughes? Tsk! Tsk! Let me guess! You were an economic adviser to Lehman Brothers.
I won't render an opinion about your opinions on global warning, but I will say that the position you stated on WNYC yesterday saying that buying human organs for transplant on the open market makes good economic sense tells me that you don't do very thorough research. You conclusions are simply not credible.
How do I know? I am part of the transplant community. The mother of a transplant recipient and an organ donor. Haven't read the recent research by Berkeley professor Nancy Scheper-Hughes? Tsk! Tsk!
Stopping carbon emission now is a little like hitting the brake on a car that is already falling down the bridge. We should give the warming for granted and start thinking about limiting the consequences. Several years ago 350 ppm of carbon dioxide was the most agreed on "limit", and we are already passing that level right now.
It seems very unlikely that the Earth will become like Venus and wipe out every form of life. Yet my understanding is that we cannot completely exclude such a scenario. The main reason is that while carbon and vapor levels in the atmosphere have been way higher in the past, the Sun is dangerously 20% stronger now than it was then.
In other words, gradually moving inland and to Alaska and Canada might not suffice. Perhaps we should start thinking about placing sunshades at the L1 Lagrange point. I don't know, but focusing ourselves on carbon emission might be dangerous too, since this is not the 90's anymore and, while reducing emission will certainly help, it's likely too late for doing only that.
It's not just temperature that matters. Ocean acidification, the forgotten child of global warming, is a huge threat to global ecosystems, some of which support the economies of many areas. You can't stop ocean acidification by lowering global temperatures - and your solutions don't seem to address the other issues associated with the emission of CO2.
I certainly believe that your assertions are not ideologically driven. However, it's all definitely unscientific - you two don't even seem to understand the issues, let alone the solutions.
It is clearly apparent that Levitt and Dubner walked into several traps laid by skeptics. This is surprising because these gentlemen appear to be reasonably intelligent and diligent and should have been able to see the traps, particularly since the traps are well-known skeptical ruses.
I have found the videos by Peter Sinclair effective in exposing several of the traps that caught Levitt and Dubner. The videos are short, entertaining, and to the point in refuting the skeptical lies ( eventually published in Superfreakonomics).
Here is the link to the video debunking the statements about a 1970's scientific consensus on global cooling prominently printed on the SuperF cover: youtube.com/watch?v=4nTw0KneNLg
Here is a link to the video debunking the so-called recent cooling since 1998: youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M
The fact that the SuperF authors fell for these long debunked lies, even to the point to exclaiming that the scientific consensus on AGW is akin to a religion, shows how little research they did before writing this chapter.
The idea that simply adopting a contrarian stance on a subject as well studied and analyzed as global warming, will suddenly reveal an earth shattering new solution, is laughable. There is no substitute for knowledge, and espousing a solution without at least a modicum of knowledge about the factual information in a specific field is a mistake.
If the authors don't act fast, and pull the book, they will be known throughout history as the chumps who fell for the most rudimentary lies about the science of global warming.
I do hope you will be kind enough to directly address the issue of the significant change in the ocean's pH balance (roughly 30% over the last century), which has little relationship to temperature and a strong relationship with atmospheric CO2 level, and describe exactly how your suggested mitigation approach will fix that. That's the "other" CO2 problem.
If your research is solid, why do you whine about what the bloggers are saying about your book? Bloggers aren't interested in facts and truth, they are interested in being read and celebrated, no matter what they write. Suck it up, for chrisakes! Let's face "facts" - people who make global warming a religion are crazy to start with. Try changing a Catholic into a Jew or a Methodist into a Muslim. Same problem. You are attacking their religion, no matter how crackpot it may be.
Congrats for looking at real evidence. I'm really pissed off at the "Global (Insert disaster here)" proponents, who keep faking data to support their positions. It makes it nearly impossible for me to figure out what the real story is, though 90% of the fake data I've seen is in favor of global warming, so... Nick
Time to starting painting everything white, I guess. Or maybe we just need a blackness offsetting scheme. You can put up solar cells so long as you cover an equivalent darkly covered area in white.
Just to be clear: I am joking.
I'd love to see a sensible economic analysis of global warming. I think people on both sides are lying through their teeth, one side to continue business as usual, the other to coerce me into being a hair-shirt wearing back-to-nature hippie. But I think there are some people on the global warming side who are not lying, and the inadequacy (or simple irrelevance) of proposed solutions to this existential threat terrifies me.
However, the black solar cells quote has completely destroyed my confidence in SuperFreakonomics providing this analysis.
Welcome to all the single-issue, drive-by carpet baggers. Nice to see you posting comments at the blog - I assume we'll also see you next time there's a post on incentives for university academics, cost of parking or any of the other interesting things that happen here.
I'm not sure (as I said in another thread) why anyone is surprised by this reaction - the orthodoxy was challenged, just a bit, and this is the expected blood-curdling response. Well done, although pretty far from denial or even scepticism.
I swear that if I hear "You are an economist, not a scientist" one more time, my head will explode. No, economists are not climatologists, but they are scientists and are capable of asking a simple question like: "What is the size of the confidence interval on your prediction?" Apparently that number is quite large...kind of like the confidence interval on the probability of failure for a mortgage-backed security. We see where that little lack of accuracy got us, don't we?
Your best ammunition is a stock of obnoxious or silly names names for those who don't agree with you on this subject. SInce many of the best have already been co-opted by the other side, it will take some real creativity.
Heck, I'd do it for 25-cents a perjorative, since I know swears and bad words in several languages, and their indo-european roots. Now armed with a pile of great dyslogistics...you'll have a chance!
Stilted academic horses are always funny looking animals to ride. In the context of Superfreakonomics, they sure add to the fun of the carnaval. See above.
All that has happenned is that Dubner and Levitt have put their feet in it espousing a way under quarter-baked geoengineering idea; and by so doing will have inadvertently sold more books.
When the volcanic dust settles, the controversy may have helped more people to start to think seriously about geo-engineering approaches. The trouble with climate change is that there is a fat tail of maybe very big risks in the perspectives for our future. Jacking up the price of carbon to the consumers should be enough to keep the planet habitable and homely; but it would be a very good idea indeed to have further practical measures up our sleeves
Wow there are quite a few people here who need some intellectual help. First, let's read the book. Second, laugh at the critics that didn't read it. Third, laugh a the people, who got advanced wind, with the agenda who didn't understand what they got. Science attacked again, only it's being attacked by GW zelots in this case.
1. Poor Ken, caught in the middle between Joe Romm and you guys. And he won't make a buck off the book (at the end it looks like you will be going to the bank looking like rhetorical St. Sebastians).
2. For a more substantive and non-political take down of your book, I would look forward to your responses to William Connolly's comments at his blog Stoat: scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/10/superfreakonomics_global_cooli.php
In particular, I will be interested in your proof that macro-economic models are more accurate than current climate models.
3. I know as true Chicago devotees that you believe the ideal state would be one with no taxes, the State existing I guess on court fines, user fees, and donations for National Defense. But given that some sort of State will continue to exist for the foreseeable untiil withering away, and we still have taxes, would it not be better to tax something we want less of such as pollution as opposed to taxing labor, savings, and investment as the FICA and income tax do? And why do you suppose global engineering such as Mr. Myrvold proposes be any more practical than CO2 constraint? Who would pay for it? If the Government, would that not mean finding tax revenue for it or decreasing other spending?
3. There is a certain moral issue here which you guys simply don't recognize. As your favorite taken out context climate scientist Ken Caldeira states:
"I believe the correct CO2 emission target is zero. I believe that it is essentially immoral for us to be making devices (automobiles, coal power plants, etc) that use the atmosphere as a sewer for our waste products. I am in favor of outlawing production of such devices as soon as possible
It's always amazing to see how many bitter and ideological anti Global Warming comments are made on this blog. I'm curious where economists tend to lean in regards the issue.
(And I am laughing at the prospect that someone is probably going to respond "we're scientific, unless those scientists who all worship at the alter of AGW")
Regarding your "drunk walking is more dangerous than drunk driving":
After thinking about it for 15 seconds, I conclude that most of that effect would be driven by the fact that drunk *walkers* would mostly be a different kind of person than drunk *drivers*.
What kind of people show up in the *injured while drunk walking* and *injured while drunk driving* stats? For the walkers, it's mostly homeless alcoholics who fall down and hit their heads, or pass out on the sidewalks and paramedics are called. They are more poor, less responsible. Almost by definition, since none of them can afford a car!
This .01% of the population is surely dominating the stats. Chronic alcoholics who get so drunk they cannot stand, and do it twice a day, every day. Paramedics and police officers know these guys by name.
People driving home after bars have (1) cars, and (2) homes. They are more responsible, less likely to let things get ridiculously chaotic.
Unless you controlled for socioeconomic status, you've got a massive omitted variable bias thing going on there. But if you DID control for SES, I could actually see how driving might be safer than walking. (Experimentally, say, letting a drunk walk a mile versus drive it). Driving you don't have to walk upright, balance, negotiate curbs - it's easier. You might be more likely to trip and break a collarbone or wrist, but you are MASSIVELY less likely to kill an innocent family.
"The statements being circulated create the false impression that our analysis of the global-warming crisis is ideological and unscientific. Nothing could be further from the truth."
Wouldn't the response demonstrate that your critics are the ones who are acting ideologically and with scientific basis? No, of course not. The Left has demonstrated that they are the moral arbiters of all things. :P
Future historians will study how turn-of-the-21st-century media so consist ently believed in not only global warming, but that it was human-caused, when it never happened. Along with the American racial standoff and reverse sex discrimination, it would make interesting contents for a college course circa 2050.
A more accurate prediction might go something like this:
"Future historians that study 21st century history will discuss why so many people ignored the overwhelming scientific concensus about AGW and, as a result, these same people ended up moving away from coastlines because their property was underwater."
And what would be wrong with doubting global warming also? We live in free societies, we can have our opinions and we can also interpret scientific evidence. This is the new Inquisition. I DO NOT BELIEVE in global warming, and there are many reasons to believe so, many of them already posted here. But I have no quarrel with those who do. This should be a scientific debate, not a question of political and moral views. It is clear that interest groups are trying to stop any global warming criticism because they fear losing the humongous rents they are getting from public money. Shameful.
Stephen the problem with the geo-engineering that you propose is that this "cure" will be worse than the disease. We don't know what type of damage this will do to the planet in the longterm. Even if it works (and we don't know it will), it could prove to be a even more expensive solution to maintain. Unfortunately this stuff will provide an easy getout in the minds of those people who know very well that man made climate change exist but who are unwilling to modify their lifestyle to accomodate it. I agree however that people are generally selfish and will not through any moral pressure reduce their carbon emissions. We need to tax and regulate emissions and encourage more energy efficiency and better sources of power. This will be the greatest political test of this century. One which we are on course to fail.
Btw to all you climate change deniers we know there's no point in trying to convince you about its existence. You'd rather find succour with your cherrypicked factoids. But climate change will effect you too. Just remember this when your old and all around you is in the course of desertifying.
"Even Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong got in on the action before they
ResponderEliminarConsidering that:
ResponderEliminar1. The planet has not warmed as significantly as the AGW crowd would have us believe and appears to have begun cooling after 1998.
2. There are indications the planet will cool for as much as 30 years before warming again.
3. Warmer periods have been better for human life and survivability than colder.
4. CO2 is a trace element that promotes plant life and therefore the animal life that depends on it.
It would seem that perhaps we and our governments should focus more on real toxic environmental impactors and less on using CO2 emissions as a means for extracting more taxes and making life more difficult for us.
It is your critics that have a blind religious need for global warming to be true as conventionally understood. Yet they avoid solutions like geoengineering and nuclear power that would not raise the status of white liberal yuppies relative to the rest of the countries. This shows that they are not truly concerned with global warming per se, but simply are trying to raise their own status.
ResponderEliminarWhy is the phase "Global Cooling" in the title then? It's been pointed out that there will be a number of people who will only see this book on the shelves of an airport bookstore. Even if you qualify the "Global Cooling" aspect of your title in the text, the folks who never read the book but saw the title will still be mislead. As for geo-engineering, I'd say the authors are probably letting their boyhood love of science fiction novels to get the best of them...
ResponderEliminarDon't worry about it.
ResponderEliminarJust the bare fact that you sorta, kinda, maybe questioned part of the AGW theory puts you squarely in the "opposition" camp with many of the people who really, really want to believe that Global Warming is the single most important issue facing mankind. Eventually.
You're "denialists" now, and nothing you can say will redeem you in their eyes.
"The statements being circulated create the false impression that our analysis of the global-warming crisis is ideological and unscientific. Nothing could be further from the truth."
ResponderEliminarYou call global warming a "religion."
That's about as ideological and unscientific as you can get.
Oxpo - It can hardly be fair to blame Levitt and Dubner for the fact that America is filled with non-readers who will believe anything they hear in a soundbite. That's a deeper societal problem. It is perhaps the oldest cliche of print culture that you shouldn't judge a book by it's cover. That extends to SuperFreakonomics.
ResponderEliminarOxpo,
ResponderEliminarI read a lot of science fiction when I was a boy, and now I know how preposterous it all was. I mean, there were stories about tourists in space, hand-held wireless communication devices that could fit in your ear, and China emerging as a power and sending people into space. There was even a story about a computer that held all the knowledge of the world and people could just dial in and learn about history, pop culture or science for free.
Obviously, Asimov et al were rather silly.
Then why is your co-author posting on this blog BBC articles claiming that global warming is no longer happening?
ResponderEliminar"SuperFreakonomics isn
ResponderEliminarThis is not a rebuttal. We need a point-by-point rebuttal. Your sources are saying you quoted them out of context. Your critics are showing clear instances where you guys got your facts wrong. You need to give us evidence that, for example, solar panels are black and not also blue, that mainstream thought was that the world was cooling in the 1970s when people are saying that was not what mainstream thought was then.
ResponderEliminarYou should get to "work" a bit quicker on these issues.
You write: " Meaningfully reducing global carbon emissions has proven to be difficult, if not impossible. This isn
ResponderEliminarScience can prove that global warming is a farce driven by the far left politics and those that want no progress by mankind. When is America going to wake up and throw out the bums. Fred
ResponderEliminar"The bottom line is that the foundation of these attacks is essentially fraudulent . . . "
ResponderEliminarMuch like a lot of the data used to support catastrophic anthropogenic global warming/climate change.
@Oxpo,
ResponderEliminarIf they are only reading the cover (which is entirely designed to get you to be curious about the book and read it) - then they have no reason to be critical of the book, or should be 'mis-led' by their laziness from not actually reading the book.
If you base your decisions on a single quote, enticement statement, or soundbyte, you are making woefully informed choices. This is a significant problem with how many people receive their 'facts' today .
repeat after me... Never. Judge. A. Book. By.... (you know the rest).
You guys should also check out what Ezra Klein had to say about your drunk driving section over at his Washington Post Blog.
ResponderEliminarI can't wait to read your replies to these criticisms. I'm a big fan of the first book but this stuff seems pretty damning.
Dear Actuator;
ResponderEliminarThe problem is whether the temperature has changed up or down relative to environmental changes on this planet and relative to other planets. We now can answer the two sides of this question- and I bet there is cause to be real concerned. Taking it down to a very basic level-- make a mess, clean it up and some messes (if you let them go for too long) are impossible to clean up. I wonder about people who make judgments on this question based upon their values, suppositions etc. That is not science. It has been said that "ignorance is bliss." Well, I guess if you are dead, it is bliss. Sure, there are some people who have the sort of metabolism where they can eat anything-- but how many, and even they need to be concerned about what eating too much junk is doing to their bodies. So re the economy-- we need a regulatory mechanism that works and that holds people accountable. Yes, there are some corporations who are not greedy. But having just bought some stock and paying 650. for the opportunity only to find out that a friend paid for the exact same transaction 19.95. I say-- greed is still in and needs to be monitored asap-
I don't think the issue is that your analysis is ideological and unscientific as it is utterly incompetent. Actually, I'd surmise that your analysis is primarily profit-driven. Nothing sells like reflexive contrarianism.
ResponderEliminarI thought your first book was flatly terrible, but that was mostly because it was poorly written and fairly repetitive. At least it was a credible attempt to inform the reader, though. I guess that was too much to ask on this go-round.
I like a good "fact" based argument. Let the fists fly!
ResponderEliminarSorry clarification ",but poorly constructed and research content" should be "but point out the poorly constructed and researched content"
ResponderEliminarWhy would you called that criticism fraudulent? You might provide an explanation of why you are right but calling your criticism fraudulent?? don't worry, your book will sell well and you'll get few more millions...You don't need to call people or their criticism fraudulent. Polite disagreement will create much better image and an environment for discussion.
ResponderEliminarThere will never be a broad bipartisan consensus upon anything it seems, even upon empirical science, judging by your supportive commentators. I have resigned myself to seeing this as an issue between two methodologies for thinking about information (inductive versus deductive reasoning). Naturally people who have nothing much to lose, such as middle class scientists do not look for nor need information that supports their short term economic goals. In comparison these fragile corporate empires are perilously entangled in the politics of promoting information that it is focused upon short term self-interest and they use think tanks to market these packets of "special" information to others.
ResponderEliminarYour response will be taken more seriously if you refrain from the ad hominen attacks in which Dubner has already engaged.
ResponderEliminarI am highly disappointed in the behavior of your co-author.
Agreed - let's have a point-by-point rebuttal of ClimateProgress. Less shouting and more debate, please.
ResponderEliminarAlso, your GW chapter has been circulated widely (i.e. lots of people have actually already read the chapter!). ClimateProgress even had a pdf linked to on that post ...
This is what happens to anyone who dares challenge "scientific consensus." This history of science teaches us that today's scientific consensus often becomes tomorrow's benighted superstition. Nineteenth Century medicine which traced diseases to the vitreous or aqueous "humors" now seems laughable and barbaric. In the early Twentieth Century physicists supposed that electricity in the atmosphere flowed through a medium of "ether" and this too was scientific consensus. Let's have some humility, people, and keep an open mind.
ResponderEliminarNot on sale yet? I ordered my copy earlier this week and got it on Friday.
ResponderEliminar> SuperFreakonomics isn
ResponderEliminarYou can't have it both ways: try to score publicity with the catch phrase "global cooling," which belongs only in the denier camp that now loves you while at the same time claiming to have an accurate understanding of the basic science of global warming. What next for freakonomics: it's commonly assumed that being dead means the absence of breathing and brain-activity, but we are going to turn received wisdom on its head to prove that the dead can indeed breath and walk.
ResponderEliminarWell, unless you write the words "global warming" followed immediately by the words "...is unequivocally being caused by the hand of Man." then you will re shouted down as a heretic. Especially here in the NY Times.
ResponderEliminarYou two must hate the world and want us all to die of smog.
Peter, I might recommend becoming a scientist or perhaps more easilly reading a book on the history of science or even the philisophy of science to realize how factually incorrect your comments are. Scientistific consensus is difficult to achieve and has rarely been overturned in the past. FYI, by consensus I mean that 90%+ can agree on a fairly specific set of scientific statements.
ResponderEliminarAnd another thing - you claim that:
ResponderEliminar"Yet [Ken Caldeira]'s research tells him that carbon dioxide is not the right villain in this fight."
What does Ken Caldeira really say - dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/:
> "Carbon dioxide is the right villain," says Caldeira, "insofar as inanimate objects can be villains."
What were you saying about "the foundation of these attacks is essentially fraudulent"? It seems *your* response is fraudulent.
More coverage at scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/why_everything_in_superfreakon.php
One question: if "we believe that rising global temperatures are a man-made phenomenon and that global warming is an important issue to solve," why is your book subtitled "Global Cooling"?
ResponderEliminarI'm looking forward to the thorough response. In light of the many inaccuracies (there was no global cooling consensus in the seventies, the globe hasn't stopped warming, CO2 is a major culprit in the warming), you sure have some explaining to do.
ResponderEliminarData don't lie, but coming up with a incorrect interpretation of thosedata seems to be surprisingly easy.
On one thing I agree with your premise: Meaningfully reducing global carbon emissions is indeed very difficult. In light of the risks involved with a high CO2 world, we should drastically increase our efforts to do so. You could have made a useful contribution in thinking about ways to reduce those risks. It's a shame you didn't.
Virtually all climate scientists and all the world's governments understand that global warming is not only happening, it's happening faster than predicted, and the consequences, if we do nothing, are basically "it's the end of the world as we know it".
ResponderEliminarOf course you denialists are soooo much smarter than all of them.
Professor Levitt,
ResponderEliminarI loved Freakonomics. Just loved it. But now, instead of telling the world about your own research, which you actually understand, you've mistakenly allowed yourself to become a mouthpiece for a baker's dozen of well-worn "let's do nothing to reduce carbon emissions" tropes. This is a real disappointment.
In your shoes, I would consider just acknowledging that this chapter is flawed. Your reputation may be permanently damaged if you continue to defend really shoddy work.
A couple of things to mention that I understand are neglected in the book:
ResponderEliminar1. CO2 causes increased ocean acidity in addition to global warming, so aerosols don't even solve the whole CO2 problem. This is even ignoring the additional problems aerosols may cause.
2. The vastly lower CO2 emissions from solar power (even including that produced during the manufacture of the panels) vastly more than offsets any albedo affect. If you're concerned that the darkness of solar panels would contribute to global warming, we could easily paint an offsetting amount of stuff white, or even just cover things like roads and parkinglots that are already dark with solar panels.
Here is yet another take on the chapter:
ResponderEliminarscienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/10/superfreakonomics_global_cooli.php
The book has not been on sale, but the climate chapter has been available somewhere as a PDF - until it was removed.
I'll be very interested to see this. Hopefully you stay away from the ad hominems and name calling that categorized Dubner's response so far. I'd love to see some transcripts showing that Caldeira is wrong to say he was misrepresented, how Krugman's interpretation of Weitzman is inferior to yours, how your statement in this post about the position you two have on global warming squares with Dubner's post from Thursday, where he's cheerleading a newspaper article claiming that manmade warming is insignificant and that we're in for 30 years of cooling.
ResponderEliminarThat said, given that you misrepresented the DeLong post you linked to in this response, I'm already a bit wary. DeLong didn't criticize your chapter on global warming. He criticized your PR strategy in having the .pdf of the chapter taken down and stopping amazon searchability, precisely because it meant he could only read the critics, and not independently verify them.
Taking issue with the fact that he hasn't read the book yet not only misses his point, but actively misleads people into thinking he was attacking the substance of your book.
This rings incredibly hollow:
ResponderEliminar"Like those who are criticizing us, we believe that rising global temperatures are a man-made phenomenon and that global warming is an important issue to solve."
Maybe global cooling shouldn't be part of the subtitle?
Superfreakonomics is already on sale at the book stall across the street from my home. It surprised me too. They were selling it for $7.50
ResponderEliminarGlobal warming is no joke especially, since there has been a lot of misinformation about it by special interest groups for short-term monetary gain, which people actually believe, to-date halting scale-appropriate timely action and greatly amplifying the danger.
ResponderEliminarWith the hottest temperatures and averages on record in the last few years including a recent 1-in-200-year heat wave killing 27,000 people in Europe, current and near-future projections for climate-change causing serious life-threatening problems in both the developed and developing world, the honorable thing to do would be to withdraw the book -- or correct it to accurately represent the facts -- and apologize.
With the Iraq War, healthcare, and the delay of scale-appropriate action on climate change etc., apparently, there is just too much money in cultivating ignorance.
The Producer's Mel Brooks managed to win with "Springtime with Hitler . . . ." You'll probably win something out this venture. But, the future of current life on this planet -- including us -- will not.
Complaints about people arguing without having read your book would have been a bit more credible if you had not been so guilty of the same sin. Consider the "but studies don't measure the CO2 impact of HSRail construction" when citing a study that did just that.
ResponderEliminarIn the end, no matter who witty the apologetics for mainstream economics, it remains mainstream economics with all that entails for the acceptance of radical limitations on what questions about the economy may be effectively expressed.
No, see, you don't understand...
ResponderEliminarIf you don't agree with their *ideology*, you are ideological and unscientific.
Wow--Everyone's response is SO EMOTIONAL. It drives home the point that a rational discussion about environmental problems is currently impossible. Everyone's already made up their mind, and lines have been drawn. Kudos to you for attempting to make things fuzzy again!
ResponderEliminarDenial?
ResponderEliminarPlease go to the National Climatic Data Center's website:
ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global
They have now made it very easy to access their month to month climate monitoring data.
Please look at the gif figure for mean temperatures for September since the 1880's:
ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/get-file.php?report=global&file=glob&year=2009&month=9&ext=gif
Temperatures are not continuing to rise. They've hit an asymptopic ceiling.
There is no denial with respect to the theory of global warming. It simply does not exist.
In fact, with the sun in a calm state since post-2005, we are very likely looking at an extreme reversal in temperatures very soon.
Dear Steve:
ResponderEliminarDon't be apologetic, it only enrages them. Remember what happened to Larry Summers when he tried to make nice.
Tell them to go away until they have read the book.
I'm never buying any of your material. Your chapter is disgraceful.
ResponderEliminarThe specifics pointed out by Climateprogress.org are quite interesting, including the latest installments:
ResponderEliminarclimateprogress.org/2009/10/17/error-superfreakonomics-krugman-economics-dead-wrong/
And it is amazing that people still think it's scientifically valid to cherry-pick ENSO-biased 1998 as a base period to claim a decade of global cooling (in a temperature dataset with no Arctic representation). CLIMATE warming is based on average deviation from a multi-decadal base period, in which the variability of "internal" ocean-atmosphere heat exchange tends to cancel out.
@38, Nell: "Virtually all climate scientists...." do not agree. There is ample contrary evidence. As previously mentioned, wattsupwiththat.com/ is a good place to go to find contrarians.
ResponderEliminarI am not a "denialist", I would simply say that whether the earth is warming or cooling is immaterial. It's been hotter before and it'll be cooler in the future. Or vice versa. Either way, there is precious little we can do about it. Don't be wasteful, conserve where possible and look for more efficient ways to do everything. But a wholesale overhaul of our entire way of life will never happen.
And as to whether or not "...all the world's governments..." are in agreement on warming, you're wrong. India and China have more or less told the developed world to take a hike when it comes to environmental matters, as have most African nations. I suppose that when you say "all the world's governments" you mean "all the world's governments in Europe." Because warming is primarily a concern of the affluent Western countries of the world.
Please suspend publication and review the science carefully before releasing this book. The passages quoted by responsible people reveal that you did not learn very much of the underlying science and made some very basic mistakes.
ResponderEliminarPlease don't throw away your reputation for the sake of a few dollars. You will never have it back.
yrs,
richard
You write:
ResponderEliminarDon't worry. Krugman's a knob.
ResponderEliminarSo just curious...
ResponderEliminarHow many people have actually read this chapter?
Or can cite specific errors in his research methodology?
Responses from people who have this information would be more illuminating...and would lead to a more fruitful discussion.
Oh and why not wait for him and Dubner to actually respond; And then try to tear apart the actual rebuttal?
I believe that BOTH prof's Levitt &Krugman are wrong (i.e. they agree that climate change is mostly man-made). Furthermore, prof. Krugman is Even More incorrect in supporting carbon cap-&-trade policies + subsidies &the whole "green economy".
ResponderEliminar3 Facts:
FIRST - Recognize that Money rules the world (Especially Politics/Policy)...
SECOND - The biggest threat to our existence are nuclear weapons, not CO2 or +2.5C over 3-5 decades.
THIRD - there is no 'green economy' there is simply an extremely costly cap-and-trade system some politicians support, & a subsidised &lobbied-for privileged industry that is otherwise cost-inefficient - &in the end the normal parts of our economy/industry are hurt (firms shut down or cut production) = we lose EMPLOYMENT + the 'green' sector does Not make up for it. ALL good economic research (by economic research standards i.e. objective) shows that growth will decrease as a result of these policies.
THUS:
Q1 - there's a lot of opposition to the "climate change" policy. WHY?
A. Because SUBSIDIES ®ULATION (tax breaks etc..) are being CAPTURED by the 'green' lobby - high-tech & PE companies (Al Gore is the easiest target here).
B. The evidence is weak (watch " UNSTOPPABLE SOLAR CYCLES" documentary on youtube), read excerpts of lectures of alternative research papers / renown climatologists
- there's substantial evidence, supported by climatologists who do not agree to "research climate change" (I.E. turn away grants &donations to their departments by corporations &individuals to research "solutions" to climate change &similar research issues with the purpose/hypothesis (of the donors) to prove that climate change is occurring)
Q2 - How is it that > mankind has survived through the Ice Age < (among other climate changes &catastrophes) without all the modern tools we possess to relocate / shelter ourselves / grow enough food??
Can't we handle climate change, without succumbing to:
a) regulation (hurts economies &industry - hurts your EMPLOYMENT! )
b) subsidies (it's TAX money that could be spent on education/health care/paying back the huge debt)
c) hurting firms, employment, and economic growth?
DaveyNC
ResponderEliminarYour ignorance is amusing.
Well, I don't know if that chapter was your work and/or Dubner's, but the criticisms to date look pretty coherent, so a fair-minded point-by-point response, not to mention putting the chapter text up, would be helpful for your own reputation.
ResponderEliminarCould I suggest that you start with Brad DeLong's six questions? I am particularly astounded by your inclusion of Myhrvold's remarks on solar panels without comment. As reported, they are utterly bizarre for someone with a PhD in physics, and it's clear that at least one of the three of you has been either dishonest or wholly mistaken.
"The most important point I hope you can explicate is that climate models are not science. Science is what is observed, not forecast."
ResponderEliminarThis is dead wrong. Every scientific law and theory is a prediction about how things will occur.
E=MC2 predicts how much energy you will get if you convert mass to energy. F=MA predicts how much acceleration an object will receive given its mass and the force applied to it. The laws of thermodynamics predict how systems will interact based on their entropy and heat.
"Fraudulent" is a fairly strong characterization. To make this claim be anything more than an ad hominem argument, you need to have strong evidence of intent on the part of your critics.
ResponderEliminar"Much of the climate community still views the idea with deep suspicion or outright hostility. Geoengineering, many say, is a way to feed society's addiction to fossil fuels. "It's like a junkie figuring out new ways of stealing from his children"
ResponderEliminarIn other words, 'much of the climate community' would not welcome engineering-based cures to global warming on the grounds that they might allow us to continue our sinful addictions and dissolute lifestyles. For these folks, the idea that action on global warming will require us to change our ways of living is not a bug, it's a feature.
I am a paleoclimatologist, and can only say FINALLY. Someone with economics background understands the difference between reality and a model for reality.
ResponderEliminarAl Gore, Jim Hansen, Paul Krugman, and many on this page want us to base public policy on models claim to predict the future of the climate, even though they do not model cloud formation correctly, do not incorporate the Sun, and do not model the biosphere feedback at all (just for starters). This is not (necessarily) a criticism of modelers. Modeling a planet is difficult; many things will be left out of a model. It is likewise not surprising that these models have failed to predict anything (that is, say in advance what is going to happen). Not hurricanes, not El Nino, not the cooling of the past few years. Nor do they "retrodict" things from the past that the modelers did not know about and therefore did not parameterize into their models. Not the Pliocene warming. Not the Ice Age terminations, nothing.
Those of us who work with models are not surprised by this at all. We are still crawling in climate modeling, and one must crawl before one walks. The only surprise is that politicians should have become so fixated so strongly on science that is just not there.
Jim Hansen had an interesting hypothesis; that feedback cycles that amplify CO2-caused increases in temperature might overwhelm feedback cycles that damp this perturbation. Maybe. Any good scientist would consider it as a hypothesis. But it is clear now that it is a poorly supported hypothesis, and is certainly no grounds for determining public policy.
The problem arises because Al Gore declared Hansen's hypothesis "a winner", made a movie and won a Nobel Peace Prize. And so non-scientists (including many people writing on this page) think they have "settled science" in their pocket. This is not the first time that science has been corrupted by politicians selecting a winner. Stalin re. Lysenko; and back to the Pharaohs.
On this page, we have people who display none of the critical thinking required for science who nonetheless think that their opinion is "scientific". Gecko thinks that the European heat wave means something (no, weather is not climate). Tom Olson is certain that your chapter is "flawed" (It probably is, but does Tom have a clue why?). Nell is certain that "virtually all climate scientists and
If the Union of Concerned Scientists review points are correct (at
ResponderEliminarucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/book-superfreakonomics.html),
it sounds like Leavitt and Dubner have proven themselves gullible to the silliest of claims against the science of global warming (e.g. it's been cooling since 1998, carbon dioxide levels were higher in that past, etc., etc.)
Contrariness can seem cute at times, but it's no substitute for knowledge.
"you are not scientists"
ResponderEliminarI always love hearing that line from those running about spouting the platitudes of Al Gore. Obviously the flim-flam man gets a pass on credentialing, as do the small army of movie stars, rock bands, and media personalities who lecture the rest of us at every opportunity.
Who but the skeptics were saying in 1998 that there was no crisis? Ten years later it is obvious that the skeptics were right, and the panicked alarmists were wrong with their Vision of the Imminent Apocalypse. The average rational observer saw it all happen, sees the backpedaling by the alarmists, and wonders if we might not discuss all this and try to arrive at the truth over time. Instead we are told to remain silent while the alarmists destroy our economy, future, and way of life. I don't think so.
Controversy sells books..
ResponderEliminarConcision and simplicity are deadly effective, and the book will thrive on this theme: Carbon reduction is an ineffective and unaffordable way to change climate.
ResponderEliminarGood Luck.
ResponderEliminara. Did you think that writing anything about climate change would NOT generate controversy? Climate change has been politicized and everyone has their opinion, scientific or not, valid or not.
b. I will reserve judgment until I read the chapter.
c. Just make sure your rebuttal is scientific. present the hypothesis, evidence even if it should be obvious ... restate it anyway.
I've read the chapter and my response is quite simple: it's no better than a mediocre magazine article. You aren't an expert in the field and the chapter shows no special understanding that an average quality news reporter might bring - well, maybe part of the discussion of externalities might be more economist-sounding, but not by much.
ResponderEliminarI have to say I'm surprised. The article takes an extremely complex subject and reduces it almost ad absurdam, even relying on the magazine article-like quoting of a few hand-picked voices. It's not sloppily written but it's so far below the level of the actual work you do that it makes me sad.
There is nothing "super" about this chapter. It is a lessening of the work you've actually done.
I'm especially looking forward to the detailed takedown you two have in store for misrepresenting other's opinions. You owe Caldeira an apology. Plain and simple.
ResponderEliminarYou really don't get it. The whole point of an environmental crises is that their is no solution other than socialism.
ResponderEliminarHow you have no realized environmentalism is a socialist shell movement is beyond me. After all, you don't think all those socialists disappeared after the wall fell, do you?
The title states Global Cooling which is about as bad as one can get regarding the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There is no global cooling on time scales that determine the underlying trend from AGW. The title of the book alone suggests that the authors are more interested in selling the book than being scientifically accurate.
ResponderEliminarGlobal Warming: Man or Myth?
www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_warming/
"Like those who are criticizing us, we believe that rising global temperatures are a man-made phenomenon..."
ResponderEliminarBoy, do I wish Levitt didn't take this view. I guess you simply can't be a college prof in the Western world and go against the grain on this issue. Too bad.
I think what bothers me is that many of the concerns raised are less about specific points of argument, but more about questionable research (authors claiming you misquoted them and so on).
ResponderEliminarI really enjoyed the first book and often told people "don't read malcom gladwell, he's just a storyteller. Freakonomics backs it up w/ solid research and facts".
If that means you need to delay publication, I'm cool w/ that. We all make mistakes. I can wait for a book that has any issues fixed--as I'm sure many readers would be willing to do the same.
I do hope, however, if you feel that things need to be corrected, you correct them instead of just "pushing it through". I don't think your readers will be OK with that.
You would have found it less stressful to have included a chapter containing nothing but cartoons depicting Mohamed. Your opposition would have been more genteel, too.
ResponderEliminarDo you see anything in the behavior or attitude of Joe Romm and his Reaver-like followers that leads you to believe that they want to save the world?
It shows how the publishing world works today.
ResponderEliminarTwo economists write an interesting book about how economics can lead to counterintuitive conclusions, and it is successful.
As a result, those two economists are pressured by their publisher to write a follow-up book with a similar title and with more counterintuitive conclusions, which will earn everyone lots more money.
They exhausted most of what they really have to say in their first book, so they search desperately for more subjects to write about.
Since global warming is the subject of intense debate, they decide to write about it and look around for contrarian positions they can quote. They are in a hurry to complete the sequel, and they don't know much about global warming, so they misquote, misrepresent, and misunderstand many of their sources in order to quickly write a chapter that is provocative and contrarian as possible.
Needless to say, this not the way to write a book that says anything worthwhile.
Good luck, Dr. Levitt,
ResponderEliminarYou have committed the heresy of questioning the Church.
You will burn at the stake, you blasphemer!
Repent now or scream in hell forever.
Global warming will result in more and frequent natural and climate related disasters, with million in the developing countries set to die.
ResponderEliminarWith less people to sustain, the climate will gradually recover.
The rich will suffer less than the poor. We should not find it surprising, and there is no new lesson to be learnt here!
The public (and their panderers, like Krugman, or whomever) want *problems*, not solutions. Books or documentaries (like "An Inconvenient Truth") are predominantly about a problem and the disastrous consequences of that problem. Very little (a small fraction) of time is spent on real solutions to the problem, and those "solutions" are almost never thought out very well.
ResponderEliminarPeople want problems, and they pay to hear about them. The more dire, the better.
Is this the moment when Freakonomics has its Jane-Fonda moment. Guys, when you are up against Krugman, then please correct yourself.
ResponderEliminarNo, every reviewer clearly says that the chapter makes the same false claim. And that false claim is this: In the seventies, there was a consensus that there was global cooling, similar to today's consensus about global warming. There was no such consensus; it was a theory that there was slow cooling, and the consensus decided did not have enough proof. NOTHING like today's thousands of scientists who agree about the problem, NOTHING like the fact that the northern border of Russia use to never fully thaw throughout all of human history, and there is now a 500-mile-wide ocean there in the summer. These freak guys try sooo hard to be witty and unconventional that sometimes they just lie.
ResponderEliminarRe: Global Warming as Religion
ResponderEliminarWith people overwhelmingly ignorant of what is and isn't science, how could the popular global warming ideology be anything but a religion, at least in some significant way?
However, isn't Pascal's Wager a more pragmatic stance:
AWG & Inaction = Apocalypse.
AWG & Action = Possible Solution.
No AWG & Inaction = Market Prosperity?
No AWG & Action = Tidier world?
Whatever those questionable last two entries are, they have to be really impressive to outweigh an apocalypse. Couldn't they only be relevant if they predict an equally plausible alternate apocalypse? I'm sure a 2x2 doesn't do the question justice, but I feel we're missing the important risk analysis instead in favor of ideological shouting.
I look forward to reading Super Freakonomics and see their take.
Yuk yuk. I'm witty and have something controversial and counter-intuitive to say. Yuk yuk; try to think of something this way instead. See the mower is mowing the grass, the grass is hitting the blade. yuk yuk. It all means that you dont really have to mow your lawn anymore. See how witty. Huh? Do ya? We've all had enough of these silly guys replacing thorough understanding with little games and half-truths.
ResponderEliminar"A prominent environmental blogger has attacked us. "
ResponderEliminarI don't think anybody attacked you. I think they rebutted your argument. There is a difference.
Maybe if you removed your ego from the analysis, the results would improve.
Levitt you've been drinking that Chicago kool-aid way to long. It's time to get back to your MIT roots and do some serious research. That's the difference between a John Bates Clark winner and a Nobel.
ResponderEliminarNot a bit of it.
ResponderEliminarYou not only are denialists, you are cashing in on the tail end of the Republican War on science. Absolutely nothing in your book re global warming is at all new. Absolutely every word is well debunked. You're liars and con men, and you deserve to be pilloried, and your book to be remaindered.
The economics in the chapter is just as bad and confused as the climate science. For example, they describe Mount Pinatubo as generating "positive externalities", whereas externalities are always costs imposed on or benefits rendered to third parties due to some economic activity. It was more annoying than reading Malcolm Gladwell...
ResponderEliminarThis response to the criticisms of this book is ridiculous. The scientific sources of the (mis) information in the book, are publicly saying the authors have incorrectly characterized their work and analysis. This is deadly; the book would get a failing grade in undergraduate courses on the science discussed, because the factual information is wrong.
ResponderEliminarIf the authors want to defend printing lies about the work of the scientists they used as their source, then they better learn something about the science of global warming.
As to getting attacked before the book is out... this book has already been publicized in the media, and this makes the content discussed fair game.
There's looking like iconoclasts and there's painting yourself into a corner with the Tea Partiers and the tinfoil hat crowd. This chapter really does the later. Dudes, you should have done your homework better.
ResponderEliminarOne point that no one seems to talk about: Our problem is not just "global warming" but actually "global lack of night time cooling." The greenhouse effect hinders heat radiating back out into space, so nights just aren't as cold as they once were.
ResponderEliminarThis affects everything from pine bark beetles to wine grapes in ways that most people are unhappy about. Pine and spruce bark beetles have destroyed 40 million acres of forest from Colorado to Alaska because winter nights are no longer cold enough to control them.
The various schemes to put stuff in the atmosphere to block sunlight may reduce average temperature, but will not restore night time cooling. The only way to do that is to reduce the greenhouse effect.
Put on your glasses and stop staring myopically at data - manipulated data - from the last 30 years and see what the history of our planet has been screaming at us - we don't control climate change and CO2 has never controlled climate change. Oh wait... Oh yeah.. to admit that we can't control climate change by limiting CO2 means we have to admit we aren't god and goverments cant' collect taxes - and that means we then have to focus on all the environmental damage we've been doing and blaming on rising CO2 emissions and actually fix the real problem instead. Grow up people - we have to adapt to climate change and become better managers of our environment - not CO2, because we can no more control the temperature on this planet by limiting CO2 then computer models can accurately predict the weather 3 weeks or 300 years from now!
ResponderEliminarWhat's really surprising about Krugman's response (well, not really surprising considering it is Krugman, who is a pretentious snob anyway) is the affront on your career that he weaves into his attempted critique of your take on climate change. Just sort of unnecessary/nasty.
ResponderEliminarJust as an aside, the media conflated the "global cooling" scares of the 1970's into an enviromental mantra that never came to pass.
ResponderEliminarThats seems to be the case again. Claims of global consensus is one of those herrings that get repeated all the time now. Its not that there is no warming that is the issue. Its the chicken littles and end times enviromental priesthood that scares some of us who have seen this before.
Dominus Vobiscum.
Dude, people have criticized you for much more serious sins than having an unpopular opinion. Namely, people have taken swipes at you for misrepresenting sources (Caldeira supports cutting emissions and sees huge problems with aerosol pumping; Weitzman considers a five percent chance of catastrophe significant and considers warming less than ten degrees to pose serious problems and to be much more likely), lending credence to long-disproved arguments (that an informative comparison can be made between the scientific "consensus" on global cooling in the 70's and the current consensus on global warming, for example. Oh, and just recently your co-author used the 1998 outlier to make a post about how the earth is cooling), and presenting an extremely one-sided view of geo-engineering (discussing aerosol pumping without mentioning ocean acidification, for example).
ResponderEliminarThese people aren't *just* painting you as a knee jerk contrarian or global warming denier, they are also making great arguments for why your chapter on global warming is intellectually dishonest. I hope you start treating this less like a kerfuffle over your broad thesis or an attack on you for being a global warming heretic and start dealing with the specific claims of academic dishonesty people are leveling against you, either admitting that you misrepresented people and presented a warped view of the argument or proving why you did not. Because that's what is giving me (reader who enjoyed freakonomics, has scrapped plans to buy superfreakonomics) pause, not the ad hominem attacks or even the claims that you are wrong. I don't think aerosols are the optimal solution to global warming, but I can read a book from someone who does. But if you are willing to misrepresent 1. sources and 2. the state of a broader academic debate (by, for example, championing extreme positions without fairly characterizing the arguments against those positions in the main stream), I have no desire to read what you write.
All of the global average temperatures are readily calculated for the entire 20th century and until the present with no consideration whatsoever of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The method and graphic results are shown in a pdf at climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true
ResponderEliminarDr. Levitt,
ResponderEliminarThe Union of Concerned Scientists shared climate scientist Melanie Fitzpatrick's criticism of your book's chapter on global warming with several media outlets. NPR simply recognized the value of sharing with their readers that scientists and scientific organizations are taking issue with how your book characterizes climate science. Sending an e-mail and making polite phone calls can hardly be considered "pressure."
Further, I take issue with your characterization of your critics. They are scientists with expertise in climate Melanie Fitzpatrick is a scientist. And Joe Romm is a former Department of Energy official with a PhD in physics.
I look forward to your more robust response of criticisms of the book's chapter. And I also look forward to discussing your invitation to exchange ideas on these issues with my coworkers when I return to work on Monday.
Thanks,
Aaron Huertas
Press Secretary
Union of Concerned Scientists
Think Al Gore has turned up the temp on his heated swimming pool yet? It's 38 in Nashville.
ResponderEliminarThe first poster in this thread quotes the authority figure economist Krugman, while the fifth poster says that economists are too ignorant of real science to be able to make any comment. Sounds like a good cage match to me.
ResponderEliminarIn terms of whether this is a religion for some, after reading many posts I can't help but feel that many of the posters would be burning people at the stake to make examples of them, if they had the power to do so. Certainly, the level of animus is more like a political discussion than a scientific one. (And yes, perhaps the co-author is trolling -- haven't read there yet so I don't know -- but if you fancy yourself as a representative of science and reason, one might expect you to respond that way.
Don't let people intimidate you out of your very important work guys! Don't be afraid.
ResponderEliminarWhy are the presumptions and character attacks on these two considered fair discourse, but their attempts to maturely and fairly defend themselves from being taken out of context considered "ad hominen attacks"?
They aren't taking the denial side. They're just analyzing one of the many facets of the issue. And now that the poralizing global warming crusaders are seeing a popular figure question some aspect of their orthodox, they're getting out the guns. And now that these two are defending themselves, *they're* the ones making ad hominen attacks?!
Stephen and Steven, some of us out here have enough common sense to support you. Keep the good work. Don't worry about the character attacks. Your integrity is admirable.
It's the same old story. The two people at the party that everyone loves for their independent mindedness because they have great anecdotes about sumo wrestlers suddenly get raised eye brows and scoffs when they have voice *real* independent thought.
ResponderEliminarIt's so much easier to love independent-mindedness when it's someone standing on a table and wearing a lamp shade than when they contradict the popular zeal that you cling to.
Unfortunately for the popular academic dogmatists, these lamp shade wearers have a real mind of their own.
Eat it, Krugman!
Levitt / Dubner 2012
I think it's interesting that educated economists aren't supossed to comment on climatology, yet environmentalists want our entire economy under their veto power.
ResponderEliminarRemarkable. All in favor of "GW is the greatest threat to man/woman" raise your hands...now, time to start reviewing Forbes, Fortune, BW, WSJ etc for the number of ads by consultants on "How to make your Fortune 500 GREEN." This one has been my favorite to watch. In the 70's when I studied the environment in college (yes, the same theories existed 35 years ago! Imagine!) at least it was Industry against Tree Huggers. Now Industry has discovered they can make a killing by agreeing and they now subsidize YOUR efforts to attack these issues. Doesn't the fact that most of the Utilities are backing your cause concern you just slightly? Wake up and smell the coffee. That's just one of the points the book is making. We are about to embarq on a carbon trading program because consultants and others can make a killing...not because they believe it will solve an environmental issue. Grow up.
ResponderEliminarI've read the chapter (or at least the PDF that was posted on climateprogress.org) and I think the chapter is misleading and incredibly disappointing. Details on my blog at standupeconomist.com/blog/economics/climate-change-in-superfreakonomics/
ResponderEliminarMany people have many issues about Krugman, but his insight and ability to reap a text apart is not one of them.
ResponderEliminarkrugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/weitzman-in-context/
This is a crystal clear and, as far as I can tell, who have not read the book, valid argument, from someone who has read it, and Leavitt and Dubner are not even attempting to counter it.
I have read in many places that the new book, "Superfreakonomics" is to be released on 20 october. I live in Slovenia, a tiny country to the East of Italy, and have seen the book up for sale in book stores. (of coarse I bought one imediately). Why is this the case?
ResponderEliminarI won't render an opinion about your opinions on global warning, but I will say that the position you stated on WNYC yesterday saying that buying human organs for transplant on the open market makes good economic sense tells me that you don't do very thorough research. You conclusions are simply not credible.
ResponderEliminarHow do I know? I am part of the transplant community. The mother of a transplant recipient and an organ donor. Haven't read the recent research by Berkeley professor Nancy Scheper-Hughes? Tsk! Tsk! Let me guess! You were an economic adviser to Lehman Brothers.
I won't render an opinion about your opinions on global warning, but I will say that the position you stated on WNYC yesterday saying that buying human organs for transplant on the open market makes good economic sense tells me that you don't do very thorough research. You conclusions are simply not credible.
ResponderEliminarHow do I know? I am part of the transplant community. The mother of a transplant recipient and an organ donor. Haven't read the recent research by Berkeley professor Nancy Scheper-Hughes? Tsk! Tsk!
Stopping carbon emission now is a little like hitting the brake on a car that is already falling down the bridge. We should give the warming for granted and start thinking about limiting the consequences. Several years ago 350 ppm of carbon dioxide was the most agreed on "limit", and we are already passing that level right now.
ResponderEliminarIt seems very unlikely that the Earth will become like Venus and wipe out every form of life. Yet my understanding is that we cannot completely exclude such a scenario. The main reason is that while carbon and vapor levels in the atmosphere have been way higher in the past, the Sun is dangerously 20% stronger now than it was then.
In other words, gradually moving inland and to Alaska and Canada might not suffice. Perhaps we should start thinking about placing sunshades at the L1 Lagrange point. I don't know, but focusing ourselves on carbon emission might be dangerous too, since this is not the 90's anymore and, while reducing emission will certainly help, it's likely too late for doing only that.
It's not just temperature that matters. Ocean acidification, the forgotten child of global warming, is a huge threat to global ecosystems, some of which support the economies of many areas. You can't stop ocean acidification by lowering global temperatures - and your solutions don't seem to address the other issues associated with the emission of CO2.
ResponderEliminarI certainly believe that your assertions are not ideologically driven. However, it's all definitely unscientific - you two don't even seem to understand the issues, let alone the solutions.
It is clearly apparent that Levitt and Dubner walked into several traps laid by skeptics. This is surprising because these gentlemen appear to be reasonably intelligent and diligent and should have been able to see the traps, particularly since the traps are well-known skeptical ruses.
ResponderEliminarI have found the videos by Peter Sinclair effective in exposing several of the traps that caught Levitt and Dubner. The videos are short, entertaining, and to the point in refuting the skeptical lies ( eventually published in Superfreakonomics).
Here is the link to the video debunking the statements about a 1970's scientific consensus on global cooling prominently printed on the SuperF cover:
youtube.com/watch?v=4nTw0KneNLg
Here is a link to the video debunking the so-called recent cooling since 1998:
youtube.com/watch?v=y15UGhhRd6M
The fact that the SuperF authors fell for these long debunked lies, even to the point to exclaiming that the scientific consensus on AGW is akin to a religion, shows how little research they did before writing this chapter.
The idea that simply adopting a contrarian stance on a subject as well studied and analyzed as global warming, will suddenly reveal an earth shattering new solution, is laughable. There is no substitute for knowledge, and espousing a solution without at least a modicum of knowledge about the factual information in a specific field is a mistake.
If the authors don't act fast, and pull the book, they will be known throughout history as the chumps who fell for the most rudimentary lies about the science of global warming.
I do hope you will be kind enough to directly address the issue of the significant change in the ocean's pH balance (roughly 30% over the last century), which has little relationship to temperature and a strong relationship with atmospheric CO2 level, and describe exactly how your suggested mitigation approach will fix that. That's the "other" CO2 problem.
ResponderEliminarIf your research is solid, why do you whine about what the bloggers are saying about your book? Bloggers aren't interested in facts and truth, they are interested in being read and celebrated, no matter what they write. Suck it up, for chrisakes! Let's face "facts" - people who make global warming a religion are crazy to start with. Try changing a Catholic into a Jew or a Methodist into a Muslim. Same problem. You are attacking their religion, no matter how crackpot it may be.
ResponderEliminarCongrats for looking at real evidence. I'm really pissed off at the "Global (Insert disaster here)" proponents, who keep faking data to support their positions. It makes it nearly impossible for me to figure out what the real story is, though 90% of the fake data I've seen is in favor of global warming, so...
ResponderEliminarNick
Time to starting painting everything white, I guess. Or maybe we just need a blackness offsetting scheme. You can put up solar cells so long as you cover an equivalent darkly covered area in white.
ResponderEliminarJust to be clear: I am joking.
I'd love to see a sensible economic analysis of global warming. I think people on both sides are lying through their teeth, one side to continue business as usual, the other to coerce me into being a hair-shirt wearing back-to-nature hippie. But I think there are some people on the global warming side who are not lying, and the inadequacy (or simple irrelevance) of proposed solutions to this existential threat terrifies me.
However, the black solar cells quote has completely destroyed my confidence in SuperFreakonomics providing this analysis.
Wow,
ResponderEliminarWelcome to all the single-issue, drive-by carpet baggers. Nice to see you posting comments at the blog - I assume we'll also see you next time there's a post on incentives for university academics, cost of parking or any of the other interesting things that happen here.
I'm not sure (as I said in another thread) why anyone is surprised by this reaction - the orthodoxy was challenged, just a bit, and this is the expected blood-curdling response. Well done, although pretty far from denial or even scepticism.
I swear that if I hear "You are an economist, not a scientist" one more time, my head will explode. No, economists are not climatologists, but they are scientists and are capable of asking a simple question like: "What is the size of the confidence interval on your prediction?" Apparently that number is quite large...kind of like the confidence interval on the probability of failure for a mortgage-backed security. We see where that little lack of accuracy got us, don't we?
ResponderEliminarL&D,
ResponderEliminarYour best ammunition is a stock of obnoxious or silly names names for those who don't agree with you on this subject. SInce many of the best have already been co-opted by the other side, it will take some real creativity.
How about...
"Guineveres"
"Malerians"
"Climate Whores"
"Gore Goons" Sorry Al.
Heck, I'd do it for 25-cents a perjorative, since I know swears and bad words in several languages, and their indo-european roots. Now armed with a pile of great dyslogistics...you'll have a chance!
"Even Paul Krugman and Brad DeLong got in on the action before they
ResponderEliminarStilted academic horses are always funny looking animals to ride. In the context of Superfreakonomics, they sure add to the fun of the carnaval. See above.
ResponderEliminarAll that has happenned is that Dubner and Levitt have put their feet in it espousing a way under quarter-baked geoengineering idea; and by so doing will have inadvertently sold more books.
When the volcanic dust settles, the controversy may have helped more people to start to think seriously about geo-engineering approaches. The trouble with climate change is that there is a fat tail of maybe very big risks in the perspectives for our future. Jacking up the price of carbon to the consumers should be enough to keep the planet habitable and homely; but it would be a very good idea indeed to have further practical measures up our sleeves
I think what happened is, the authors (or maybe editors) were trying to be too cute and "edgy." Now they're stuck having to defend it.
ResponderEliminarNext time, leave the cuteness out and write a book about economics.
Wow there are quite a few people here who need some intellectual help. First, let's read the book. Second, laugh at the critics that didn't read it. Third, laugh a the people, who got advanced wind, with the agenda who didn't understand what they got. Science attacked again, only it's being attacked by GW zelots in this case.
ResponderEliminar1. Poor Ken, caught in the middle between Joe Romm and you guys. And he won't make a buck off the book (at the end it looks like you will be going to the bank looking like rhetorical St. Sebastians).
ResponderEliminar2. For a more substantive and non-political take down of your book, I would look forward to your responses to William Connolly's comments at his blog Stoat: scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/10/superfreakonomics_global_cooli.php
In particular, I will be interested in your proof that macro-economic models are more accurate than current climate models.
3. I know as true Chicago devotees that you believe the ideal state would be one with no taxes, the State existing I guess on court fines, user fees, and donations for National Defense. But given that some sort of State will continue to exist for the foreseeable untiil withering away, and we still have taxes, would it not be better to tax something we want less of such as pollution as opposed to taxing labor, savings, and investment as the FICA and income tax do? And why do you suppose global engineering such as Mr. Myrvold proposes be any more practical than CO2 constraint? Who would pay for it? If the Government, would that not mean finding tax revenue for it or decreasing other spending?
3. There is a certain moral issue here which you guys simply don't recognize. As your favorite taken out context climate scientist Ken Caldeira states:
"I believe the correct CO2 emission target is zero. I believe that it is essentially immoral for us to be making devices (automobiles, coal power plants, etc) that use the atmosphere as a sewer for our waste products. I am in favor of outlawing production of such devices as soon as possible
It's always amazing to see how many bitter and ideological anti Global Warming comments are made on this blog. I'm curious where economists tend to lean in regards the issue.
ResponderEliminar(And I am laughing at the prospect that someone is probably going to respond "we're scientific, unless those scientists who all worship at the alter of AGW")
Regarding your "drunk walking is more dangerous than drunk driving":
ResponderEliminarAfter thinking about it for 15 seconds, I conclude that most of that effect would be driven by the fact that drunk *walkers* would mostly be a different kind of person than drunk *drivers*.
What kind of people show up in the *injured while drunk walking* and *injured while drunk driving* stats? For the walkers, it's mostly homeless alcoholics who fall down and hit their heads, or pass out on the sidewalks and paramedics are called. They are more poor, less responsible. Almost by definition, since none of them can afford a car!
This .01% of the population is surely dominating the stats. Chronic alcoholics who get so drunk they cannot stand, and do it twice a day, every day. Paramedics and police officers know these guys by name.
People driving home after bars have (1) cars, and (2) homes. They are more responsible, less likely to let things get ridiculously chaotic.
Unless you controlled for socioeconomic status, you've got a massive omitted variable bias thing going on there. But if you DID control for SES, I could actually see how driving might be safer than walking. (Experimentally, say, letting a drunk walk a mile versus drive it). Driving you don't have to walk upright, balance, negotiate curbs - it's easier. You might be more likely to trip and break a collarbone or wrist, but you are MASSIVELY less likely to kill an innocent family.
"The statements being circulated create the false impression that our analysis of the global-warming crisis is ideological and unscientific. Nothing could be further from the truth."
ResponderEliminarWouldn't the response demonstrate that your critics are the ones who are acting ideologically and with scientific basis? No, of course not. The Left has demonstrated that they are the moral arbiters of all things. :P
@JM
ResponderEliminarNotice the date, JM? October 18th...yesterday.
"Sigh. So I finally got a copy of chapter 5 of Superfreakonomics."
Lol...it looks like he got a pirated version...unless these guys sell their books chapter by chapter.
Future historians will study how turn-of-the-21st-century media so consist ently believed in not only global warming, but that it was human-caused, when it never happened. Along with the American racial standoff and reverse sex discrimination, it would make interesting contents for a college course circa 2050.
ResponderEliminarPanem et Circanses:
ResponderEliminarA more accurate prediction might go something like this:
"Future historians that study 21st century history will discuss why so many people ignored the overwhelming scientific concensus about AGW and, as a result, these same people ended up moving away from coastlines because their property was underwater."
How dare you say anything to the contrary of the Global Warming mantra! You should be ashamed of yourself for having an original thought!!!
ResponderEliminarDavyNC writes,
ResponderEliminar[Nell, facts are stubborn things. I said India and China have told the developed world to take a hike.
FACT: google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gcKWD6TKOaM0JoHR55GjjosHw5NQ
FACT: thehindubusinessline.com/2009/07/20/stories/2009072051680100.htm
Either rebut me or be quiet, but don
And what would be wrong with doubting global warming also? We live in free societies, we can have our opinions and we can also interpret scientific evidence. This is the new Inquisition. I DO NOT BELIEVE in global warming, and there are many reasons to believe so, many of them already posted here. But I have no quarrel with those who do. This should be a scientific debate, not a question of political and moral views. It is clear that interest groups are trying to stop any global warming criticism because they fear losing the humongous rents they are getting from public money. Shameful.
ResponderEliminarStephen the problem with the geo-engineering that you propose is that this "cure" will be worse than the disease. We don't know what type of damage this will do to the planet in the longterm. Even if it works (and we don't know it will), it could prove to be a even more expensive solution to maintain. Unfortunately this stuff will provide an easy getout in the minds of those people who know very well that man made climate change exist but who are unwilling to modify their lifestyle to accomodate it. I agree however that people are generally selfish and will not through any moral pressure reduce their carbon emissions. We need to tax and regulate emissions and encourage more energy efficiency and better sources of power. This will be the greatest political test of this century. One which we are on course to fail.
ResponderEliminarBtw to all you climate change deniers we know there's no point in trying to convince you about its existence. You'd rather find succour with your cherrypicked factoids. But climate change will effect you too. Just remember this when your old and all around you is in the course of desertifying.