‘SuperFreakonomics’ freaks angry scientists

New book panders to American public who want to ignore evidence of global warming

FIRST POSTED OCTOBER 27, 2009

Back before the financial upheaval of September 2008, we were content to have the world illuminated and explained by pseudo-economic, pseudo-scientific culture books. First there was The Tipping Point, then Freakonomics, both of them books that painted a warm insightful gloss over social and financial affairs.

The reaction to SuperFreakonomics: Global Cooling, Patriotic Prostitutes and Why Suicide Bombers Should Buy Life Insurance, a follow-up by University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt and New York Times journalist Stephen Dubner, could hardly be more different.

Little more than a month before the critical climate change summit in Copenhagen, the authors are under attack for spreading misconceptions about climate change at a time when Americans are less willing to believe in global warming and less likely to accept the economic costs of countering it.

At issue is the book’s assertion that the planet is cooling, not warming. "There's this little-discussed fact about global warming: while the drumbeat of doom has grown louder over the past several years, the average global temperature during that time has in fact decreased," write Levitt and Dubner.

This has led to a rebuke from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which says the book mis-characterises climate science with "distorted statistics". The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has accused the authors of "grossly misrepresenting other people’s research, in both climate science and economics."

For example, the book suggests plants may thrive with higher CO2 levels but discounts the effects of drought; it asserts that sea levels can rise only 1.5 feet in the next century but ignores the risk of accelerated melting of ice sheets; and it minimises the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Ben Santer, a climate scientist at the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Lab, calls the passages on climate "a concerted strategy to obfuscate and generate confusion in the minds of the public and policymakers".

What is clear is how willing the public is to ignore the science of CO2-induced global warming. Last week, a Pew Research poll found only 57 per cent of Americans now believe there is strong scientific evidence for global warming, down from 77 per cent in 2006.

Effective political opposition to carbon cap-and-trade legislation may have led many Americans to view the cost of the policy as a cost of belief in climate change, notes the Atlantic. While the Democrats have been pushing health care reform, Republicans have been quietly massing in opposition to Obama's climate bill.

Obama acknowledged the problem last week. Opponents, he said, "make cynical claims that contradict the overwhelming scientific evidence when it comes to climate change - claims whose only purpose is to defeat or delay the change that we know is necessary."

Levitt and Dubner claim they are not global warming deniers. Yet one thing is abundantly clear: our concerns have changed since Freakonomics and what were once cute discursions on off-beat subjects offering simplistic explanations are no longer sufficient.

FIRST POSTED OCTOBER 27, 2009

Add to:

Comments

Hide comments

"Americans are less willing to believe in global warming", "only 57 per cent of Americans now believe", "...cost of belief in climate change". Helmore's language shows it up for what it is - a religion, a belief system. This is a bandwagon that has nothing to do with science. It's all about vested interests and political advocacy, and so many journalists are very badly informed and have been taken captive by advocacy groups, with all their delusions, agendas and prejudices. Why bother repeating what the Union of Concerned Scientists say - they are a far-left environmental pressure group that any ecofascist can join; and Krugman is an economist, and we all know how dodgy economic "science" is. The "science of CO2-induced global warming" is a sham and doesn't pass muster as rigorous science, and as for "overwhelming scientific evidence", that is simply a political lie. Obama, a scientific ignoramus, appointed the climate alarmist John Holdren to be his chief scientific adviser, so he's being fed some particularly corrosive disinformation. In a few years time we will all realize that this was the scam of the century. We probably should avoid popularizing books like SuperFreakonomics, but if one wants to know the true state of science on the issue, there are still plenty of good, honest scientists out there who can demonstrate that most of what we are being asked to believe is sheer baloney.

Posted by Kevin McGrane at 10:37am on October 27, 2009

I suspect from his article that the author has not read the book itself, has no background in science and has not taken the time to check data for or against. The problem with the global warming camp is that they brook no opposition, post faulty data and expect people to believe it, and are fronted by a man who lives in a huge mansion and runs around in SUVs and private jets. A New York times columnist is not someone to make me question my views ugently, nor are the words of a scientist accused of altering a chapter of the 1995 IPCC report to suit his findings. First Post - do a better job next time - this is sloppy journalism and just pushes one view without examing the whole picture. I'm ready to listen, but I want a convincing argument, not a diatribe.

Posted by Matthew Baker at 10:53am on October 27, 2009

Kevin McGrane: I don't know the facts. But I am not persuaded by your fact free rhetoric. I'm inclined to believe you are wrong; you sound like you are desperate to make a point in self interest whilst knowing that facts are against you. If you have a sound point, just make it. It may have less appeal to dumb half wits than the above, but if you do, more intelligent people will appreciate it.

Posted by TomNightingale at 11:32am on October 27, 2009

Kevin McGrane has said it well. The article itself is 'party line' for the global warming 'religion', cult really, of the hysterics. So much for journalism. The predictions to read are those from ten and twenty years ago especially those from when 'the science was settled'. That endless 'ten year window', the three and four year windows for ArcticiIce melting completely, the runaway hurrcane seasons blah blah blah. No point in saying that it's too short a time if that time was precisely the one used by the alarmists. Remember, the claims are of global warming, predictions that belong to the warmers. Not of global cooling. It's actually a bit of a plateau right now and if anyone can show a prediction of this from the warmers ten or twenty years ago I'd like to see it. Alec Kitson

Posted by alec kitson at 11:35am on October 27, 2009

Kevin is right. In the fight for truth on global warming, we must realise that global climate change is normal. If the weather was the same the world over ten days in a row we would suspect something was up. If the climate is the same ten thousand years in row, we might be convinced that something akin to one of those much-loved Star Trek time loops is the cause. We had an ice age, the earth warmed up, we had another...well, anyway, ice ages come and go. Then about ten thousand years ago it got warm enough for Neolithic man in the Near East to invent domestication of goats and sheep, then barley and wheat, camels, horses, etc. Then cities and civilisation higher than stone knives and bear skins and painting bison on cave walls became possible. But in the 1970s all the scientific journals were speculating on the fact that global cooling (yes, cooling) would occur as we are overdue another ice age, maybe. It was good for research grants then, but Ã¢??anthropogenicÃ¢?? (thatÃ¢??s Ã¢??manmadeÃ¢??, stupid) warming took over because we did the cooling thing already. It is good for research grants too. It is also good for politicians who have a tax-them-till-the-pips-squeak agenda, then carbon taxes are morally necessary, just another sin tax. Ã¢??Be dismayed, be very dismayed, vote for us, we will save the climate, the world, the poor, our plush limousines, our jet-propelled trips to Ã¢??Save The EarthÃ¢?? summits in Bermuda, our pensions, vote for us...Ã¢??

Posted by michael jose at 12:48pm on October 27, 2009

Kevin McGrane: You really are in need of a reality pill, on and on you rant without a shred of evidence, while accusing others of lack of evidence. Where can I start? You'rre obviously a signed-up member of the deluded far-right-wingnut Americans for Selfishness lobby, are totally lacking in any scientific ability or knowledge or you wouldn't be making these ludicrous claims. For your information, because the writer uses the word believe doesn't mean it's a religion, idiot, it's what one says when someone refuses to believe a self evident fact. There are tens of thousands of highly trained, experienced scientists around the world who have spent decades studying aspects of climate change, not advocacy groups, [they're just people who listened and took it on board early and care enough to do something about it] the scientists doing the work are in no doubt. You wouldn't know rigorous science if it smacked you in the mouth. But apart from the science [if you could understand it] there's the self evident effects already taking place; heard about the month's rainfall falling in 24 hours? Heard about the floods that keep occuring across the planet? Heard about the arctic ice melting? Heard about the droubts? Ever experienced the environment or do you live in a box in a room in a city where the environment is a rumour? I suggest you stop reading mainstream media and go wallow on the denier websites where the challenged congratulate each other for being 'in the know' about the scam that appears to have taken in not only the whole scientific community but all governments of the world as well. While your little band of social missfits can't even muster one 'good honest scientist' among you. Which doesn't stop you claiming they exist, other than in the seedier websites and there's always a book to sell to the hard of thinking. You should get out more, then you might see that seasons are out of kilter, plants and animals don't know whether winter or spring is coming. I remember winters. And the other normal seasons, but if you're under thirty you probably think aberated weather is normal. As I said, you're an idiot, but you think you know something. You don't. Eventually, if you live long enough, it's going to come and smack you awake, upset your cosy life, make things very difficult, and make you face up to reality.

Posted by Peter Simmons at 2:40pm on October 27, 2009

New book panders to American public who want to ignore evidence of global warming sayÃ¢??s Edward Helmore. What evidence are you talking about Edward? Global warming is a one-sided coin, and like all one sided coins it is a fake. The public believe in Global warming only because the Government has stacked the deck against them. Just as there are two sides to every coin, there are two sides to every debate, but the other side has been silenced. Global warming is all about Green Taxes, green taxes is about money, and money is power. Waken up for goodness sake, and research Global warming for yourselves, or do you not mind, being led like a bull with a ring through its nose?

Posted by Alex at 4:18pm on October 27, 2009

It's amazing how every time that climate change is mentioned, Kevin, Alex and Michael launch into print just to wind up Peter, and boy do they succeed! The old Enoch Powell principle of "if you want to take all the people some of the way, then take some of the people all of the way" has never been more proved, but the public's increasing boredom with being hounded, taxed and otherwise bludgeoned by the green lobby is now becoming rather obvious, as this article on the Americans indicates. I think that we can all accept that the climate is changing, or warming, or whatever words you care to use (but do remember that we were threatened with another Ice Age only 30 years ago), but most people also accept that we can't fix this - the Earth's climate has always changed (growing crops in Greenland 1000 years ago? the Romans having vineyards in England? the Thames freezing over in Dickens' day?) and it is arrogant in the extreme to think that we can stop this, or slow it down, never mind reversing it! Having said that, as I have said before, most people again will be happy, or at least prepared, to make savings in energy usage and recycle rubbish because they can see that to do otherwise is wasteful of finite resources, and if they can save money at the same time then that is an added bonus - but they are not doing it to change the climate!

Posted by Carruthers at 6:05pm on October 27, 2009

Yeah, but 34% of Americans believe that aliens have visited Earth. Most Americans believe Sadaam ordered 9/11. You're talking about simple farming folk here. They believe any crap they're told. How else could a congenital idiot like George W Bush get elected President?

Posted by Neil McGowan at 9:16pm on October 27, 2009

Hi Carruthers old boy, your right about recycling, I was doing this in own small way before recycling became popular, as a painter and a sculptor I never purchased wood for carving or making frames, I used recycle frames, and I scavenged old wood. Yes I go along with recycle. But really global warming is a deliberate lie, this old world has been blowing hot and cold since the beginning of time, and it shall continue to do so long after you and have Gone. And I think that they still grow grapes in certain parts of England.

Posted by Alex at 10:36pm on October 27, 2009

Levitt and Dubner appear to have gone from adding interest to the dismal science to lending credence to dismal science. I'm sure its still an interesting read.

Posted by Fred Smith at 5:17am on October 28, 2009

The planet is growing warmer! It's happening faster then ever before in history! The K. McGrane's of the world have their reasons for either a)sticking their head in the sand or b)distorting what they know. Who knows what that might be

Posted by eric legere at 3:09am on October 29, 2009

Eric Legere: interesting assertions, but not factual, so worthless. You might be surprised to learn that scientists (such as myself) who don't go along with climate alarmism are quite well able to read temperature charts. These show that the rate of warming in the first half of the twentieth century was higher than in the second half; that the globe has not warmed in the past 7 years, and if anything there is a slight cooling; and that by far the fastest recorded rate of increase of temperatures in England were 300 years ago. Currently no warming on land, no warming in the oceans and no warming in the atmosphere, and no tropospheric hot spot as predicted by pitifully poor computer models. Funny where all this 'trapped' heat is going - perhaps you'd like to tell us. While you are at it, tell us what evidence there is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing a difference from natural variation that is statistically significant, and any forecasts that have been prepared along the lines of the well-established rules of scientific forecasting (don't give me Met office or IPCC, they haven't been). Don't give me computer models - they are not evidence or scientific forecasting and have been falsified time and again as being unable to make any predictions. Which of them, for example, predicted 7 years of flatlining or slight cooling that we've had? As for the past, there are an infinite number of polynomials that can be run through past data. Would you drive a car by looking in the rear view mirror? None of this anthropogenic CO2 nonsense passes the basics of scientific rigour.

Posted by Kevin McGrane at 11:03am on October 29, 2009

Acting on human CO2 emissions at this stage in global warming is like shutting the stable door when the horse has boarded a plane and is flying to another continent. What the Global Warming lobby has to accept is that we have contributed to a natural process that our planet has been going through since plant and animal life first arrived. We may have accelerated that process but it was going to happen anyway. I'm not saying that reducing pollution is a bad thing, just that we'd be better off building the flood barriers now. Mind you, they could have got their predictions about the rise in sea levels wrong as well...

Posted by Mark Hale at 8:42am on November 2, 2009